Hamas threatens attacks against Israeli targets abroad

[Skeptic]

FYI: I don't think Parky is in fact Jewish, despite his frequent claims to be Jewish. The amount of Jewish lore of which Parky continually reveals himself to be ignorant is nothing short of astounding.

Sadly, you underestimate the ignorance many Jews, especially American Jews, have about their own religion. Parky seems like a typical product of the American educational system when it comes to knowledge of Judaism. Then again, many, many American Christians think "the immaculate conception" refers to Jesus...

So, I have my doubts that parky is Jewish or has relatives who died in the Holocaust (well, Jewish ones anyway).

To be fair to Parky, the holocaust killed a third or more of the world's Jewish population two generations ago, and about 90% of Europe's Jews. I'd say practically every occidental Jew has relatives who perished in the holocaust.

[Thunder]

I'm starting to understand why many of you here, and many folks in the world, insist on exaggerating the threat posed by Hamas.

Right-wing Israelis and Jews are trying to argue that Hamas is NOT just an enemy of Israel, or an enemy of the Jews, but is an enemy of ALL mankind.

They are just as bad as Al Qaeda. This is the argument you all are trying to make.

But meanwhile, Hamas has never targeted Americans inside or outside Israel, let alone Israelis OR Jews outside of Israel.

Therefore, its really really difficult to make the case that "our enemies are YOUR enemies", if this enemy fails to target Americans, let alone Jews, outside the theatre of conflict.

Why does Hamas have to be as bad as Al Qaeda? Why do they have to be portrayed as enemies of Israel AND the USA and the West?

Being responsible for suicide attacks against Israeli civilians ain't enough? You think the world will make more of a big deal and be on Israel's side, if Hamas attacked American and European civilians too?

Its almost like you guys are saying "the world doesn't care about Hamas killing innocent Jews. Therefore, we have to convince them that not only are they trying to kill Israelis, but they also wanna kill all Jews....just like Hitler!! And they wanna kill all Christians too!!!"

Well, guess what? the world ain't buying it. we know Hamas is bad. we know Hamas kills innocent civilians in Israel. we don't need lies about them wanting to kill all Jews or Christians, in order for us to know Hamas is bad.

And those that think Hamas is good? Killing a few Jews in London, or a few non-Jews ain't gonna change their minds anyways.

[Thunder]

To be fair to Parky, the holocaust killed a third or more of the world's Jewish population two generations ago, and about 90% of Europe's Jews. I'd say practically every occidental Jew has relatives who perished in the holocaust.

6 million out of 11 million...is 54%.

where in the world did you get 90%???

do me a favor...if you are gonna defend me...do it with facts and not fantasies.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

6 million out of 11 million...is 54%.

where in the world did you get 90%???

You misspelled "Thanks for defending me, Skeptic."

[Skeptic]

That Judaism considers tragedies to be a divine will, or punishment for the people's sin, is of course true. But there's a world of difference between that and claiming, as Neturey Karta do, that the holocaust was God's justified revenge, using the Nazis as His agents, on the Jews for the sin of zionism.

It's like the difference between thinking, say, that 9/11 was due to God's will or the world's sins in general -- and thinking, as Fred Phelps does, that it is God's handiwork, using the terrorists as his avenging angels, to punish America for tolerating gay people.

It's like the difference between thinking about the problem of innocent lives lost when God is supposed to be all-good and all-powerful and after the Haitian earthquake and concluding (unsatisfactorily, in my view, but I digress) so it must be some sort of punishment after all -- and discovering, as Osama bin Robertson did, that it is all the fault of those damn Haitians escaping from slavery against God's will 170 years ago.

Parky deliberately ignores this difference because he is attempting to whitewash Neturey Karta. It isn't working, at least for me.

It's clear why he's making the attempt in the first place: just like trying to legitimize Fred Phelps as if he were doing nothing wrong is usually the result of hating gays, or trying to defend Robertson's bizarre nonsense about Haiti would be the result of hating Black people (to America's credit, practically nobody is defending him), trying to legitimize the most hate-filled anti-zionist Jews one can find is due to hatred of zionism.

[Skeptic]

6 million out of 11 million...is 54%.

where in the world did you get 90%???

Can't you read? I said "90% of Europe's Jews".

Yeah, I should have known better than to try and defend parky, Sword_of_Truth. The result is the usual personal attack based on a misreading of what I say.

Got my just deserts, I suppose.

[Thunder]

That Judaism considers tragedies to be a divine will, or punishment for the people's sin, is of course true.

this is something Sword fails to grasp. that it is tradition for us to view our tragedies as God's will, and God's punishment against us.

does that mean that Czar Nicholas was God's messenger, when he sent his soldiers to kill Jews in the pogroms?

in a half-assed BS kinda nutty religious way...yes.

does this also mean, that the Nazis were in some way, carrying out God's orders?

again, in a nutcase religious extremist way, yes.

Orthodox Jews believe that nothing happens to the Jews without God's approval. This includes the Holocaust.

I obviously do not believe in such BS, but I still acknowledge that this is what we believe, BS as it may be.

And at the same time, while NK clearly feels that Zionism is responsible for the Holocaust, the fact of the matter is that most Zionists escaped the Holocaust..and most of the Jewish Holocaust victims were just regular, unaffiliated folks. NK knows this. that's why NK calls them "our brothers, sisters, uncles, wives, husbands" and "holy people"...and not "those filthy bastard Zionists who deserved to die and got what was coming."

NK does not cheer the Holocaust. Maybe they would, if it was clearly targeted against Zionists, and if Zionists made up a large portion of those killed...but they didn't...and they weren't.

[Thunder]

Can't you read? I said "90% of Europe's Jews".

yes. I can.

on the eve of WW2, there were around 11 million Jews in Europe. after WW2, 6 million were gone.

6 million is 54% of 11 million. 5 million Jews remained in Europe after the Holocaust. this was 46% of the original pre-war population.

comprende??????

versheten??????

Oy vey, we got some real schlemiels here.

[Thunder]

To be fair to Parky, the holocaust killed a third or more of the world's Jewish population two generations ago, and about 55% of Europe's Jews.

this is what you meant to say. 5 million Jews were left in Europe after WW2. that's 45% of what was there in 1938.

unless you believe that there were only 7 million Jews in Europe, before WW2. And I am SURE folks like MaGZ and 9-11 Investigator would LOVE to hear this!!!!

[Sporanox]

does this also mean, that the Nazis were in some way, carrying out God's orders?

again, in a nutcase religious extremist way, yes.

I don't think so. There is a big difference between allowing something to take place and igniting and directing it. Equivocating the two denies an important distinction.

[FireGarden]

That Judaism considers tragedies to be a divine will, or punishment for the people's sin, is of course true. But there's a world of difference between that and claiming, as Neturey Karta do, that the holocaust was God's justified revenge, using the Nazis as His agents, on the Jews for the sin of zionism.

It's like the difference between thinking, say, that 9/11 was due to God's will or the world's sins in general -- and thinking, as Fred Phelps does, that it is God's handiwork, using the terrorists as his avenging angels, to punish America for tolerating gay people.

It's like the difference between thinking about the problem of innocent lives lost when God is supposed to be all-good and all-powerful and after the Haitian earthquake and concluding (unsatisfactorily, in my view, but I digress) so it must be some sort of punishment after all -- and discovering, as Osama bin Robertson did, that it is all the fault of those damn Haitians escaping from slavery against God's will 170 years ago.

I don't normally comment on Skeptic's analogies, because I don't normally have anything nice to say! But I think he has a point, as far as I've quoted anyway.

Believing an event is God's will, but not expounding upon that because "God works in mysterious ways, blah blah", is one thing. Deciding that you know what God is up to, and failing to coin the phrase "God's unholy bastards", is another.

[Skeptic]

And at the same time, while NK clearly feels that Zionism is responsible for the Holocaust, the fact of the matter is that most Zionists escaped the Holocaust..

Indeed so, which might tell us something about what zionism was good for.

[marksman]

Hamas supporters in Florida, and yet no Hamas attacks in Miami? how can this be?

Because supporters are not members. People support an organization only to the extent their goals coincide. It's the same reason Henry Ford could support Nazism without going around murdering Jews.

So, once again, Parky, do you have any evidence that members of Hamas are in London?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

this is something Sword fails to grasp.

The other 90% of Skeptics post which comes after the single sentence you have quoted agrees with my position. I have no problems grasping things.


does this also mean, that the Nazis were in some way, carrying out God's orders?

again, in a nutcase religious extremist way, yes.

I'm glad that at long last you concede that people who think the nazis were servants of God are "nutcase extremists"

Orthodox Jews believe that nothing happens to the Jews without God's approval. This includes the Holocaust.

WRONG!

I pointed out what orthodox jews really feel about NKs bloodthirsty bigotry and what was your response? That the rabbis opinion didn't count because he isn't from New York City.

Brilliant response, Parky... truly amazing.

I obviously do not believe in such BS, but I still acknowledge that this is what we believe, BS as it may be.

But you have little problem defending it.

And at the same time, while NK clearly feels that Zionism is responsible for the Holocaust, the fact of the matter is that most Zionists escaped the Holocaust..and most of the Jewish Holocaust victims were just regular, unaffiliated folks. NK knows this. that's why NK calls them "our brothers, sisters, uncles, wives, husbands" and "holy people"...and not "those filthy bastard Zionists who deserved to die and got what was coming."

Actually this is almost exactly what NK has said. They said that all these people died because God sent the Nazis to punish them for not marching to NKs tune.

It was all in the portion of NKs website that you quoted, remember?

NK does not cheer the Holocaust.

Yes they do... the jews of Europe needed punishing because they weren't following the path of the "True Torah Jews" (a self applied NK title, kind of like Al-Queada calling themselves "true muslims" before blowing up a Baghdad street market). So God sent the Waffen SS to give the disobedient jews a holy clock-cleaning.

This is why Rabbi Rosen called them a bunch of freaks.

[Thunder]

WRONG!

I pointed out what orthodox jews really feel about NKs bloodthirsty bigotry and what was your response?

Oh, I am sorry. Please remind us of that quote that you posted from

Agudath Israel of America,
the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
the Rabbinical Council of America,
the Union of Orthodox Rabbis,
the National Council of Young Israel,
the Chief Rabbinate of Israel,
the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Chief Rabbis of Israel,
the Chief Rabbis of Britain, Spain, Germany, and Russia,
and Chabad Lubavitch,

regarding Naturei Karta and their various beliefs regarding Zionism and the Holocaust.

That way we can really get a sense of what Orthodox Jews feel about these guys and their beliefs.

cause we ALL know, one single Rabbi cannot possibly speak for millions of Orthodox Jews across the globe.

[Thunder]

Indeed so, which might tell us something about what zionism was good for.

gonna retract that statement that 6 million Holocaust deaths wiped out 90% of Europe's Jews? Or shall I contact MaGZ and 9-11 Investigator to inform them that they have a new ally in the war on the "Holohoax".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Oh, I am sorry. Please remind us of that quote that you posted from

Agudath Israel of America,
the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
the Rabbinical Council of America,
the Union of Orthodox Rabbis,
the National Council of Young Israel,
the Chief Rabbinate of Israel,
the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Chief Rabbis of Israel,
the Chief Rabbis of Britain, Spain, Germany, and Russia,
and Chabad Lubavitch,

Why don't you go get their opinions?

Be careful how you word your inquiries though, if "Was Hitler an angel or divine messenger?" are the first words out of your mouth, I doubt you'll get very far.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

gonna retract that statement that 6 million Holocaust deaths wiped out 90% of Europe's Jews? Or shall I contact MaGZ and 9-11 Investigator to inform them that they have a new ally in the war on the "Holohoax".

This is hysterical coming from a Holocaust Cheerleader Denier.

[WildCat]

"Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER'S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION."


and from this, you read that the Satmars believe that the 6 million died due to their OWN sins???????????????


you should get better glasses. the Satmars are clearly saying that the 6 million INNOCENT Jews died as a result of Zionism. not that they themselves were guilty of any crime.


again. glasses. try them.
Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it parky?

[Thunder]

Why don't you go get their opinions?

you made that claim that you know what Orthodox Jews believe about NK. so I think you should find out what the major Orthodox groups on Earth feel about NK.....in order to back up your statement. This is JREF, after all.

however, all you have done, is quote one...single...Rabbi.

are you trying to tell us that all Rabbis think alike?

that's a pretty anti-Semitic thing to say, if you ask me.

[Thunder]

This is hysterical coming from a Holocaust Cheerleader Denier.

do you also believe that killing 6 million Jews wiped out 90% of Europe's Jewish population? fascinating.

[Thunder]

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it parky?

yes. it does appear that NK believes that God punished the Jews for the "apostasy" of Zionism.

but that does not mean that NK believes that all 6 million victims were Zionists, or for that matter were sinners deserving of God's wrath.

my reading of NK's statements suggests that they believe that God enacted "collective punishment" on the Jews for the sin of Zionism. Collective punishment does not suggest that ALL who are punished, were guilty...only that many are being punished for the crimes of a few.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

you made that claim that you know what Orthodox Jews believe about NK.

Because I actually found the opinion of an Orthodox Rabbi on the Neuteri Karta death cult.

How many have you come up with?

[Thunder]

Because I actually found the opinion of an Orthodox Rabbi on the Neuteri Karta death cult.

yes. u found ONE opinion..and decided it reflects all of Orthodox Judaism.

my friend, one Rabbi does not speak for all Orthodox Jews. that would be considered anti-Semitic, among some circles.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

yes. u found ONE opinion..and decided it reflects all of Orthodox Judaism.

Which makes my position better supported than your excersize in bare assertion fallacy.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

yes. it does appear that NK believes that God punished the Jews for the "apostasy" of Zionism.

but that does not mean that NK believes that all 6 million victims were Zionists, or for that matter were sinners deserving of God's wrath.

Which makes the NK death cult even bigger a-holes. It would be one thing if the goose-stepping angels of NK mythology killed only the infidels/unbelievers/apostates.

But now the death cultists apparently feel that millions of innocents were acceptable collateral damage.

An absolutely disgusting way to view other human beings, especially ones you call "brother and sister".

[Thunder]

Which makes my position better supported than your excersize in bare assertion fallacy.

well, FYI, I just read at least 3 articles regarding more mainstream Orthodox and even Hassidic views on NK and their involvement with Ahmedinajad and the Holocaust-denier conference.

but since it is YOUR claim, that your one Rabbi represents all Orthodox Jews on Earth, it is YOUR burden of proof..to abide by.

good luck in your search. let us know when you find something useful.

[Thunder]

An absolutely disgusting way to view other human beings, especially ones you call "brother and sister".

lol. I will Paypal you $20 if you find my quote where I call NK my "brothers and sisters".

I expect loud crickets...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

lol. I will Paypal you $20 if you find my quote where I call NK my "brothers and sisters".

NK called people whose deaths they cheered "brothers and sisters".

[Thunder]

NK called people whose deaths they cheered "brothers and sisters".

oh. u werent referring to me. i got it. Paypal offer rescinded.

meanwhile, found any interesting articles regarding what mainstream Orthodox feel about NK?

[Thunder]

meanwhile, found any interesting articles regarding what mainstream Orthodox feel about NK?

we're waiting...

[marksman]

It's your assertion, Parky, so it's your burden. But I expect we'll be heading back to your ignorance-is-bliss smilie hibernation tactic soon enough.

[Thunder]

It's your assertion, Parky, so it's your burden.

no, its his assertion that this is what all Orthodox believe. so he must PROVE that this is what all Orthodox believe.

do you really think that providing the opinion of one single Rabbi is enough to confirm such a blanket generalization about the opinions of millions of people?

stop making excuses for the guy and let him do his homework.

[Skeptic]

Parky, for the zillionth time: "the holocaust was the will of God like everything else in history" is one thing. "The holocaust was done by avenging angels, the Nazis, to punish the Jews for zionism" is something else completely -- for the same reason that "we don't know why Haiti suffered, but it's God will" is one thing and "I know! I know! It's because they made a pact with the devil overthrowing slavery 170 years ago!" is something else altogether.

The very quote you yourself gave shows NK -- unlike the vast majority of Orthodox Jews, including non- and even anti-zionist ones -- think they know why the holocaut happened, they know it is the zionists' fault, and they know Hitler & co. were "messengers of divine wrath".

[Thunder]

The very quote you yourself gave shows NK -- unlike the vast majority of Orthodox Jews, including non- and even anti-zionist ones -- think they know why the holocaut happened, they know it is the zionists' fault, and they know Hitler & co. were "messengers of divine wrath".

I'd like to see evidence of this wide-spread dissagreement with NK on the Holocaust, Zionism, and their meetings with Ahmedinajad and the Holocaust-denial club-med.

I wanna see Sword back up his claims with real research, for once. We already have two threads now where he makes wild claims, which have no connection to reality or provided evidence.

p.s. I did read an article that claims that some Rabbi at NK doubted the Holocaust death figures are legit....but no proof of this was provided. However, if true, its very disgusting.



(unnecessary jab at Skeptic removed)

[bigjelmapro]

Qutb was killed in 1966. He was influencial but the Muslim Brotherhood split with him. You can see the details in this pdf:
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/LeikenBrookeMB.pdf

So to take his writings as being some kind of manifesto for the Brotherhood is bogus. He speaks for Jihadists like this guy quoted in the above article:

Did I say manifesto? No. Influence to strict adherence to Islamic law in government and the ruling of ones country without Western influence. The means in which to do so differed greatly amongst these different groups or factions, as well as the scope to which to pursue jihad and who is should be restricted to (which extremists also condemning other Muslims as apostates, which Qutb disagreed with).

Interesting article though. Identifies the Muslim Brotherhood as 'moderates' (albeit there were a number of factions), as being opposed to global jihad (yet ignoring regional jihad), and being opposed by the very wings/offshoots it has fathered.

There's a number of different directions the Muslim Brotherhood went, which includes the various offshoots, since the time of Qutb. Even in Israel and the territories, the difference between North and South factions, both influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, are substantially different in their outlook and interpreted Qutb's methods of enforcing Sharia law and gaining influence, one more passively through democratic means, others through, as stated in the article given regarding Hizb ut-Tahrir “seek to bring society to a boiling point.”

Personally, I agree with Bernard Lewis's interpretation of the democratic route of the Muslim brotherhood of: “one man, one vote, one time.” But that's up in the air what this group in Egypt does for instance since the evidence for the Muslim Brotherhood's intentions are quite thin (of which is also mentioned in the article).

Its a wait and see game when enough influence and power is garnered.



Hamas was founded in 1987, btw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
So it seems rather difficult to link them to Qutb via the Brotherhood which disowned him.

I said influenced.


I've already told you, but you seem to have missed it:

It was an answer to your question: how will Israel be destroyed?

I didn't miss it, just didn't seem to be in line with how Hamas has been approaching the method in which it would seek Israel's destruction. Especially with the updated numbers in the lowering birthrate of Israeli Muslims. They would need to do a lot of waiting at which point, the international community would have lost interest in this conflict, mind you the drying up of humanitarian aid which seems to go in Fatah and Hamas officials' pockets and lavish lifestyles.


Err, no. This is their resistance. As I said before. The two state solution, if not already impossible, is quickly becoming so. A one-state solution is the destruction of Israel.

Which obviously won't happen in the foreseeable future.

You've stated that there's this increased growth in the settlements in the WB, which I personally haven't seen beyond the natural growth. I haven't witnessed much, if any, expansion in the physical boundaries of these settlements either. And as I've said before, the brunt of these smaller settlements (beyond the ones already put on the table for final status agreements) and illegal outposts will be pulled out of, so I don't see where this impossibility lies.

Mind you, over 65% of those in the WB consist of Haredim of which their leaders have stated (have to find the Haaretz articles regarding this) that they don't have issues moving out into Israel proper or to be absorbed by the future Palestinian state. They also comprise the majority of the natural population growth in the WB. So again, where's the impossibility in the two-state solution.


You might be right on the direction of the journey. But, if a caravan is on its way back from selling stolen goods, should it be left alone?

And you make this assumption how? Are you stating that any and all unarmed civilians ferrying goods to Mecca should be slaughtered, plundered and dismembered? Here again, in contradiction to the holy month of Rejab and to rules of engagement/war. Definitely not the first time this prophet has had last moment epiphanies in absolute contradiction to his previous ones.


Not fighting in the month of Rajab is a pre-Islamic tradition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajab

So Mohammed didn't make it up.

And so is honor killings. Doesn't absolve Mohammed from proclaiming this as a religious law in addition to number of other laws/practices/traditions adopted from other religions and pagan rituals. I fail to see the relevance of the person who first made this holy month to the one who adopted the same concept and doesn't follow it through.


I don't think you did answer. In any case, I'm only asking for a simple number -- won't take long to retype. So, please: For how many years did Muslims rule Jerusalem before they became the majority religion?
And somehow you did answer what I stated to which you posed question in the first place?:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5587615&postcount=158

Mine's a bit lengthier and doesn't have to do with a game of trivial numbers. Relevance again?

[Thunder]

Oh, I am sorry. Please remind us of that quote that you posted from

Agudath Israel of America,
the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
the Rabbinical Council of America,
the Union of Orthodox Rabbis,
the National Council of Young Israel,
the Chief Rabbinate of Israel,
the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Chief Rabbis of Israel,
the Chief Rabbis of Britain, Spain, Germany, and Russia,
and Chabad Lubavitch,


......

[bigjelmapro]

I'd like to see evidence of this ...
Hmm, where have I heard this before? A request you'll actually admit exists when its given? Or one that you will ignore as a number of other ones?

ie http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5583808&postcount=91

[Thunder]

Hmm, where have I heard this before? A request you'll actually admit exists when its given? Or one that you will ignore as a number of other ones?

ie http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5583808&postcount=91

"This decision does not have to do with their policy/desire of not killing Jews worldwide in the long-run."

and of course, no evidence to back up this statement was given. its just another part of the "Hamas is much worse than you think" mantra.

[Thunder]

Oh, I am sorry. Please remind us of that quote that you posted from:

Agudath Israel of America,
the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
the Rabbinical Council of America,
the Union of Orthodox Rabbis,
the National Council of Young Israel,
the Chief Rabbinate of Israel,
the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Chief Rabbis of Israel,
the Chief Rabbis of Britain, Spain, Germany, and Russia,
and Chabad Lubavitch,

oh, come on Sword of Truth. show us those researching skills!!!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

and btw, all of your very insulting and highly inappropriate personal attacks against me have been reported. you should know better than to call the nephew of Holocaust victims a "holocaust cheerleader denier".


gonna retract that statement that 6 million Holocaust deaths wiped out 90% of Europe's Jews? Or shall I contact MaGZ and 9-11 Investigator to inform them that they have a new ally in the war on the "Holohoax".

Accusing a jew of being a Holocaust Denier is ok only when it's you doing it, Parky?

[marksman]

no, its his assertion that this is what all Orthodox believe.
No, actually, it was your assertion that NK's beliefs are in accord with other anti-Zionist Orthodox jews. Then you gave a quote form the Satmars that, as Skeptic pointed out, doesn't support your proposition. So, rather than admit you were wrong, you decided to pick on someone who deigned to disagree with you and dared them to do the leg work you tried to perform and failed (because you have a habitual inability to understand your own links).

You claimed NK's ideas are consonant with other anti-Zionist orthodox groups. So you need to show us quotes form those groups. Nobody's fooled by your attempt to fob the work onto Sword of Truth.

Really, Parky, this is obstinate even for you. Normally you devolve into smilie obfuscations well before you embarrass yourself this badly.

Edited to add: To clarify the timeline.

In post 213, you made the affirmative claim that the NK's views are similar to the Satmars. Your attempts to prove that, however, were easily debunked because their views are not similar in the important respect that the Satmars don't revere Hitler as an angel.

After 40 posts of trying to dodge this issue, in post 265, you demanded that Sword of Truth do your groundwork. It's generally not a good idea, parky, to lie about how a thread has developed when the thread is still there for everyone to read.

[Thunder]

Edited to add: To clarify the timeline.


funny stuff!!

anyways, Sword of Truth claims to have posted the opinion of Orthodox Jews, by quoting this one Rabbi in London.

He does not say this is one Rabbi, who may or may not represent the greater Orthodox community. He does however, say "this is what Orthodox Jews think".

Well, I find it highly insulting, and indeed kinda offensive, for him to suggest that the views of one single obscure Rabbi in London, represent the views of millions of other Orthodox Jews, throughout the world.

How is the best way to get a sense of what Orthodox Jews think about Naturei Karta and their anti-Zionist/pro-Ahmedinajad ideas? By doing some research into.

I did this research this morning. I learned a lot.

But it is not I who is claiming to have a handle on the views of Orthodox Jews, regarding NK. It is Sword of Truth, who has made this claim.

"I pointed out what orthodox jews really feel about NKs bloodthirsty bigotry and what was your response? That the rabbis opinion didn't count because he isn't from New York City."

The burden is his, to prove his case. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, and the more incredible the claim..the more thorough the evidence needs to be.

[Thunder]

Accusing a jew of being a Holocaust Denier is ok only when it's you doing it, Parky?

he mistakenly asserted that 90% of Europe's Jews died in the Holocaust. he has corrected this mistake, and I acknowledged it.

however, playing with numbers like this is exactly what Holocaust deniers do, so its not that hard to understand where my motivations lay.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

he mistakenly asserted that 90% of Europe's Jews died in the Holocaust. he has corrected this mistake, and I acknowledged it.

however, playing with numbers like this is exactly what Holocaust deniers do, so its not that hard to understand where my motivations lay.

Accusing a jew of being a Holocaust denier is only ok when you it, Parky?

[Thunder]

Accusing a jew of being a Holocaust denier is only ok when you it, Parky?

no. anyone can accuse a Jew of being a Holocaust denier. just have a **** load of evidence to back it up.

[Thunder]

But it is not I who is claiming to have a handle on the views of Orthodox Jews, regarding NK. It is Sword of Truth, who has made this claim.

"I pointed out what orthodox jews really feel about NKs bloodthirsty bigotry and what was your response? That the rabbis opinion didn't count because he isn't from New York City."

The burden is his, to prove his case. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, and the more incredible the claim..the more thorough the evidence needs to be.

what say you, Sword of Truth?

[bigjelmapro]

"This decision does not have to do with their policy/desire of not killing Jews worldwide in the long-run."

and of course, no evidence to back up this statement was given. its just another part of the "Hamas is much worse than you think" mantra.
You missed the example of Ahmed Wahabe. Evidence provided, skimmed over as usual. Training and financial support for terrorist attacks outside of Israel shows this intent and following up on their charter.

Response from the Hamas whitewasher?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

what say you, Sword of Truth?

Is calling a jewish person a Holocaust Denier ok only when you do it?

[FireGarden]

Interesting article though. Identifies the Muslim Brotherhood as 'moderates' (albeit there were a number of factions), as being opposed to global jihad (yet ignoring regional jihad), and being opposed by the very wings/offshoots it has fathered.

Glad you liked it.

Mind you, over 65% of those in the WB consist of Haredim of which their leaders have stated (have to find the Haaretz articles regarding this) that they don't have issues moving out into Israel proper or to be absorbed by the future Palestinian state. They also comprise the majority of the natural population growth in the WB. So again, where's the impossibility in the two-state solution.

Olmert and Barak have already voiced their concerns. And they're not the only ones. So it's not as if what I'm saying is all that loony.

And you make this assumption how? Are you stating that any and all unarmed civilians ferrying goods to Mecca should be slaughtered, plundered and dismembered?

That's not what I said. It's a matter of whether these were theives or not. The Muslims claim they were, because the Quraish took Muslim property from Mecca and sold it.

And somehow you did answer what I stated to which you posed question in the first place?:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5587615&postcount=158

Mine's a bit lengthier and doesn't have to do with a game of trivial numbers. Relevance again?

The relevance is that you talked about an "Islamic endgame", with various references to genocide. But it's clear you can't answer the question: "For how many years did Muslims rule Jerusalem before they became the majority religion?" You seem to think it's a simpler question than I do. And the answer to the question would shed light on Islam's general attitude to living with other faiths.

[Thunder]

Accusing a jew of being a Holocaust denier is only ok when you it, Parky?

do you have broken record syndrome?

you have posted the same sentence, three times.

translation: "I refuse to do any minimum research to prove what Orthodox Jewish organizations think about NK"

[bigjelmapro]

Glad you liked it.

Good to see another set of points you glossed over. Thanks.


Olmert and Barak have already voiced their concerns. And they're not the only ones. So it's not as if what I'm saying is all that loony.

Voicing concerns != impossibility.


That's not what I said. It's a matter of whether these were theives or not. The Muslims claim they were, because the Quraish took Muslim property from Mecca and sold it.

You're assuming all Quyraish were guilty, of which the self-proclaimed prophet was part of as well. Still doesn't justify breaking the laws Mohammed put in place including the slaughter and dismemberment of unarmed merchants. Could I clarify this any more? Or should I give an strong correlation to a modern example (which will probably be excused as a strawman no less) so you can finally fathom this concept?


The relevance is that you talked about an "Islamic endgame", with various references to genocide. But it's clear you can't answer the question: "For how many years did Muslims rule Jerusalem before they became the majority religion?" You seem to think it's a simpler question than I do. And the answer to the question would shed light on Islam's general attitude to living with other faiths.
Then perhaps give an explanation as to this question's relevance to this, as I see it, irrelevant and rhetorical question?

Did you miss the posts where I've explained how this general attitude has changed? And the word's right there, endgame, unless you can perhaps give a proper example how this is not the endgame?

Oh yeah, and I found in the Hamas charter where it defines itself as a wing of the Muslim brotherhood from your last misplaced comment. So a bit more than influenced I dare say:


The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.

[FireGarden]

You're assuming all Quyraish were guilty, ...

No, I'm not.

Oh yeah, and I found in the Hamas charter where it defines itself as a wing of the Muslim brotherhood from your last misplaced comment. So a bit more than influenced I dare say:

No mention of Qutb in that quote. As I said before (post 197 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5591265&postcount=197)): Qutb and the Brotherhood's leadership disagreed -- before Hamas came to be.

Here's the quote from the article I gave earlier:
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/LeikenBrookeMB.pdf

“Qutb has influenced all those interested in jihad throughout the Islamic world,” said a founding member of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, an erstwhile jihadist group known for its vicious campaign against foreign tourists in Egypt during the 1980s. “The Brothers,” he continued sadly, “have abandoned the ideas of Sayyid Qutb.”

[...] Having lost the internal struggle for the Brotherhood, the radicals regrouped outside it, in sects that sought to topple regimes throughout the Muslim world. (Groups such as al Jihad would furnish the Egyptian core of al Qaeda.) These jihadists view the Brotherhood’s
embrace of democracy as blasphemy.

If you infered that I meant Hamas wasn't influenced by the Brotherhood, then I apologise.

[bigjelmapro]

No, I'm not.

Then we're clear that merchants traveling to Mecca with items such as animal skins and raisins during the month of Rejab are not targets to be slaughtered. At the most, theft could have been overlooked even if these merchants were deemed to have taken goods when Mohammed and his followers were evicted from Mecca for their number of infractions there. Murder, beheading, and dismemberment, not.


No mention of Qutb in that quote. As I said before (post 197 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5591265&postcount=197)): Qutb and the Brotherhood's leadership disagreed -- before Hamas came to be.

Here's the quote from the article I gave earlier:
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/LeikenBrookeMB.pdf

If you infered that I meant Hamas wasn't influenced by the Brotherhood, then I apologise.
Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, as stated, even if Qutb would disagree with the means in which Hamas and their like-minded terrorist organizations went about enforcing Islamic law aggressively rather than passively. Just like these terrorists refer themselves as the true Muslims based on their interpretations of the teachings of Mohammed and his successive scholars. as still Muslims.

[FireGarden]

Then we're clear that merchants traveling to Mecca with items such as animal skins and raisins during the month of Rejab are not targets to be slaughtered. At the most, theft could have been overlooked even if these merchants were deemed to have taken goods when Mohammed and his followers were evicted from Mecca for their number of infractions there. Murder, beheading, and dismemberment, not.

Why would the thefts be overlooked? Would you overlook them?

And I'm not sure "evicted for infractions" is the correct term for the persecution which made the Muslims flee Mecca.

Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, as stated, even if Qutb would disagree with the means in which Hamas and their like-minded terrorist organizations went about enforcing Islamic law aggressively rather than passively. Just like these terrorists refer themselves as the true Muslims based on their interpretations of the teachings of Mohammed and his successive scholars. as still Muslims.

The point is you tried to link Hamas to Qutb through the Muslim Brotherhood -- which had already moved past Qutb and is criticised by those who DO follow Qutb.

[bigjelmapro]

Why would the thefts be overlooked? Would you overlook them?

Are you making an extra effort at being disingenuous here? If these merchants who were slaughtered during the month of Rejab (in addition to the slew of other merchants slaughtered) were involved in the theft of items from Mohammed and his followers in Mecca when they were forced out, then you would have a point, albeit slaughtering them instead of simply taking back what was theirs would have sufficed. Since this wasn't the case and the merchants' identity wasn't verified before the onslaught, you do not.

Are you, in addition to this point, going back on the Quraysh being automatically guilty and worthy of such treatment? This doesn't even come close to the concept of 'eye for an eye'.



And I'm not sure "evicted for infractions" is the correct term for the persecution which made the Muslims flee Mecca.

Mohammed and his followers were evicted from Mecca for threatening to overthrow the establishment there. Additionally, he threatened to throw out polytheistic, pagan, and other monothesitic religions that didn't abide by his newly found faith.

As for persecution, this was probably one of the lightest forms of persecution compared to other religious groups throughout history. There were a few cases of a handful of followers being killed, mainly by their owners (ie slaves), but the brunt of this persecution was via economic sanctions against the followers of Mohammed and Mohammed himself for trying to destabilize Mecca.

So a bit of an exaggeration to use the term persecution in this case.


The point is you tried to link Hamas to Qutb through the Muslim Brotherhood -- which had already moved past Qutb and is criticised by those who DO follow Qutb.
Refer to where I linked the Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5590377&postcount=189

...with the most recent influence of Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas considers itself a wing of, to that of Islamists' views and actions pertaining to treatment of kaffirs and how the world should be governed?
So:

Qutb influence in the Muslim Brotherhood. Correct assertion.

Hamas considers itself a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, as stated in the Hamas charter. Correct assertion.

So point out where I'm wrong here. You said there's no influence, yet haven't been able to provide argument to support this assertion.

Hamas and other terrorist groups disagree with Qutb's teachings of passive resistance and garnering influence, but this does not negate that these groups were influenced by Qutb overall.

[FireGarden]

Since this wasn't the case and the merchants' identity wasn't verified before the onslaught, you do not.

Where did this datum suddenly come from?

Mohammed and his followers were evicted from Mecca for threatening to overthrow the establishment there. Additionally, he threatened to throw out polytheistic, pagan, and other monothesitic religions that didn't abide by his newly found faith.

You'll have to cite that.
And the Muslims weren't evicted. They fled, because they couldn't defend themselves from the persecution, which you make light of -- even as you mention executions:

As for persecution, this was probably one of the lightest forms of persecution compared to other religious groups throughout history. There were a few cases of a handful of followers being killed, mainly by their owners (ie slaves), but the brunt of this persecution was via economic sanctions against the followers of Mohammed and Mohammed himself for trying to destabilize Mecca.

So a bit of an exaggeration to use the term persecution in this case.

So you won't acknowledge the killing of slaves as persecution. What hope then that economic sanctions be considered persecution?

Refer to where I linked the Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5590377&postcount=189

So:

Qutb influence in the Muslim Brotherhood. Correct assertion.

Except that, by the time Hamas was founded, the Brotherhood had moved beyond Qutb.

Hamas considers itself a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, as stated in the Hamas charter. Correct assertion.

So point out where I'm wrong here. You said there's no influence, yet haven't been able to provide argument to support this assertion.

No. You tried to link Hamas to Qutb, which I think you have failed to do. I did not deny Hamas were influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood -- in fact I clarified that point in post 303.

Hamas and other terrorist groups disagree with Qutb's teachings of passive resistance and garnering influence, but this does not negate that these groups were influenced by Qutb overall.

Qutb's teachings of passive resistance? Are sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

The main tenet of Qutbist ideology is that the Muslim community (or the Muslim community outside of a vanguard fighting to reestablish it) "has been extinct for a few centuries" having reverted to Godless ignorance (Jahiliyya), and must be reconquered for Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas, have nationalistic aims which put them at odds with the Qutbist aims. Nationalism is too worldly, too materialistic.

Qutbists think Muslims 'excommunicate' themselves if they commit sins.

Qutb was not a pacifist, as you seem to imply. He is the inspiration of the Jihadist groups I quoted earlier.

[bigjelmapro]

Where did this datum suddenly come from?

There's no suddenly at all. I haven't been able to find in any of the hadiths by Al-Bukhari or Muslim or whatnot that the merchants were identified before-hand to be thieves involved with the appropriation of goods taken from Mohammed and his followers in Mecca. Unless of course you are retracting the claim that not all of the Quraysh were guilty and therefore deserved this treatment.


You'll have to cite that.
And the Muslims weren't evicted. They fled, because they couldn't defend themselves from the persecution, which you make light of -- even as you mention executions:

Its on the main wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca

Mohammed simply made the mistake of trying to invoke a coup d'état prior to having the means to do so. Resistance by those in charge of Mecca, which at this point did have a harmony amongst religious groups without discrimination albeit not a perfect one, was an obvious result of Mohammed trying to destabilize Mecca.


So you won't acknowledge the killing of slaves as persecution. What hope then that economic sanctions be considered persecution?

I could only find 2-3 cases where slaves were killed for their religious observance. I don't generally make a trend of persecution from that.


Except that, by the time Hamas was founded, the Brotherhood had moved beyond Qutb.

But not beyond Qutb's influence, as I've stated before. You keep saying the same thing here.


No. You tried to link Hamas to Qutb, which I think you have failed to do. I did not deny Hamas were influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood -- in fact I clarified that point in post 303.

And you have failed to formulate a response as to how Qutb hasn't influenced Hamas through his writings. Hamas trumpets the same points from Qutb's "Our Struggle with the Jews" and employs the same methods of gaining influence amongst the masses via social programs and activities. Only in the 1980's did the rift in the Muslim Brotherhood away from passivity, which was Qutb's approach to gaining influence.


Qutb's teachings of passive resistance? Are sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

I am sure. In this case and in others you easily get confused with semantics:


"offensive jihad," - waging jihad in conquest[1] - or "armed jihad in the advance of Islam"
Does not imply offensive methods such as Hamas and Al Qaida employs. As explained before, this has been the different approaches between that of Qutb and said terrorist groups. This, however, which was also explained, doesn't negate Qutb's influence on the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad regardless of the rift in the 80's.


The Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas, have nationalistic aims which put them at odds with the Qutbist aims. Nationalism is too worldly, too materialistic.

Hamas's struggles are regional, albeit their hypothetical endgame (mentioned ad nausauem here), is worldly.

Hamas is too materialistic? Please back this one up...


Qutbists think Muslims 'excommunicate' themselves if they commit sins.

Qutb was not a pacifist, as you seem to imply. He is the inspiration of the Jihadist groups I quoted earlier.
Didn't say pacifist, and didn't imply it.

Here you contradict your earlier claims that there isn't a link between Hamas and Qutb. Unless of course you want to reinvent the English language that there's a world of difference between the words 'influence' and 'inspiration' and therefore those who are influencing and inspiring each other are not linked?

Short of Hamas officials wearing Tshirts with Qutb's face on it, how could Hamas and Qutb be linked to you? Osama bin Laden shirts could suffice, since there's no denying Qutb's influence on Al Qaida...

[FireGarden]

There's no suddenly at all. I haven't been able to find in any of the hadiths by Al-Bukhari or Muslim or whatnot that the merchants were identified before-hand to be thieves involved with the appropriation of goods taken from Mohammed and his followers in Mecca.

LOL,
You didn't invent it because you didn't find the contrary.

Unless of course you are retracting the claim that not all of the Quraysh were guilty and therefore deserved this treatment.

Dream on.

Its on the main wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca

Mohammed simply made the mistake of trying to invoke a coup d'état prior to having the means to do so.

A coup? Where does it say that?
The closest I find is:

Conservative opposition arose to Muhammad's speeches. According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they [the Meccans] worshiped other than Himself [God] and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief."[69] According to Watt, as the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life, which Muhammad threatened to overthrow.

So the rulers of Mecca had their source of wealth threatened. Challenging another's monopoly is not cause for persecution.

The wiki article also says:

Some of the ranking and influential leaders of the Quraysh tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching. They offered him admission into the inner circle of merchants and establishing his position in the circle by an advantageous marriage, but Muhammad refused. During this period, Muhammad urged his followers to be pacifist, commanding them to "deal gently with the infidels".

So the cause of the persecution was which act of violence? Preaching a new (competing rather than complementary) religion. For this, you overlook the killing of slaves and suggest it is an exaggeration to call it "persecution".

I could only find 2-3 cases where slaves were killed for their religious observance. I don't generally make a trend of persecution from that.

And yet you linked to the wiki article which lists some persecution, including violence and the fleeing of Muslims from Mecca to Ethiopia. Do you think they went for a holiday?


Does not imply offensive methods such as Hamas and Al Qaida employs. As explained before, this has been the different approaches between that of Qutb and said terrorist groups. This, however, which was also explained, doesn't negate Qutb's influence on the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad regardless of the rift in the 80's.

So those that lionise Qutb (eg: al-Qaida) they are the ones who don't follow Qutb's teachings. But those who disagree and distance themselves from Qutb (like the Muslim Brotherhood), they are the ones who were influenced by Qutb -- but specifically not by his "teachings of passive resistance".

I still don't understand it. But I'm willing to say it if it'll help you move on.

Hamas is too materialistic? Please back this one up...

In whose view are they too materialistic? In the view of the Qutbists, to whom religion is the be all and end all. Being nationalistic is being too materialistic/worldly.

Didn't say pacifist, and didn't imply it.

It's a natural inference from the pharase: "Hamas and other terrorist groups disagree with Qutb's teachings of passive resistance and garnering influence."

Here you contradict your earlier claims that there isn't a link between Hamas and Qutb. Unless of course you want to reinvent the English language that there's a world of difference between the words 'influence' and 'inspiration' and therefore those who are influencing and inspiring each other are not linked?

No contradiciton. Hamas is not the Jihadist group I quoted earlier.

Short of Hamas officials wearing Tshirts with Qutb's face on it, how could Hamas and Qutb be linked to you?

Perhaps they could lionise Qutb in the way that al-Qaeda does.

[bigjelmapro]

LOL,
You didn't invent it because you didn't find the contrary.

Only thing the hadiths state is that these merchants were attacked from behind and then identified to be of the Quryash tribe. Nothing more. Other hadiths mention intelligence gathering prior to other cases of slaughtering merchants, not all being Quryash.


Dream on.

So what are you stating then? This isn't a simply issue of resolving theft and being booted out of Mecca.


A coup? Where does it say that?

So the rulers of Mecca had their source of wealth threatened. Challenging another's monopoly is not cause for persecution.

So no issue with replacing a monopoly of multiple religions and stability, with a monopoly booting out all other religions except one?


So the cause of the persecution was which act of violence? Preaching a new (competing rather than complementary) religion. For this, you overlook the killing of slaves and suggest it is an exaggeration to call it "persecution".

Where did I overlook it and where did I call it an exaggeration?


And yet you linked to the wiki article which lists some persecution, including violence and the fleeing of Muslims from Mecca to Ethiopia. Do you think they went for a holiday?

Why would one allow people to stay who are associated with a group threatening to destablize and boot you out of Mecca?


So those that lionise Qutb (eg: al-Qaida) they are the ones who don't follow Qutb's teachings. But those who disagree and distance themselves from Qutb (like the Muslim Brotherhood), they are the ones who were influenced by Qutb -- but specifically not by his "teachings of passive resistance".

I still don't understand it. But I'm willing to say it if it'll help you move on.

Passive resistance to gain influence, as in Egypt, where Qutb preached. Qutb was the main propagandist from the Muslim Brotherhood at the time. Both influenced groups like Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. There were disagreements between groups, but the influence remains.

You're still peddaling the idea that since some groups disagreed with some of Qutb's teachings, mainly that of gaining influence amongst its people, that it somehow negates all of Qutb's teachings and influence.

Am I getting this assumption wrong? If so, please explain.


In whose view are they too materialistic? In the view of the Qutbists, to whom religion is the be all and end all. Being nationalistic is being too materialistic/worldly.

I don't know. I thought you were stating that Hamas's agenda is too materialistic. That's why I posed the question.


It's a natural inference from the pharase: "Hamas and other terrorist groups disagree with Qutb's teachings of passive resistance and garnering influence."

I think you're getting assumption confused with inference/deduction. Nowhere did I state or infer that Qutb is a pacifist. Garnering influence and passive resistance, ie Qutb in Egypt, does not imply that Qutb is a pacifist and that violence is off the table in every situation.


No contradiciton. Hamas is not the Jihadist group I quoted earlier.

Perhaps they could lionise Qutb in the way that al-Qaeda does.
But no link still exists between Hamas and Qutb? I asked earlier why you think Hamas is too materialistic or in this case, have nationalist aims (I don't see that in their charter beyond establishing an Islamic state instead in Israel).

Is lionising the only method to link the two?

[FireGarden]

Only thing the hadiths state is that these merchants were attacked from behind and then identified to be of the Quryash tribe. Nothing more. Other hadiths mention intelligence gathering prior to other cases of slaughtering merchants, not all being Quryash.

So you want me to believe that the Muslims attacked people without knowing who they were -- not even knowing that they were from the Quryash, which is more extreme than your first claim that the merchants were killed for simply being Quryash.

And you cite nothing concrete to back up your claims.

So what are you stating then? This isn't a simply issue of resolving theft and being booted out of Mecca.

So you keep saying. But your word doesn't convince me.


So no issue with replacing a monopoly of multiple religions and stability, with a monopoly booting out all other religions except one?

So you're claiming that the rulers of Mecca were psychic and knew that Mohammed was going to boot them out for no reason at all. Knowing this, they persecuted the Muslims in order to help them out by giving them a pretext for doing what they were going to do anyway.

You could at least try citing some violence by the Muslims from before they were persecuted.

Where did I overlook it and where did I call it an exaggeration?

post 306:

As for persecution, this was probably one of the lightest forms of persecution compared to other religious groups throughout history. There were a few cases of a handful of followers being killed, mainly by their owners (ie slaves), but the brunt of this persecution was via economic sanctions against the followers of Mohammed and Mohammed himself for trying to destabilize Mecca.

So a bit of an exaggeration to use the term persecution in this case.

I apologise. You said "a bit of an exaggeration."



Why would one allow people to stay who are associated with a group threatening to destablize and boot you out of Mecca?

You haven't backed up these allegations, except with the wiki link which said: "Conservative opposition arose to Muhammad's speeches," and made references to how some people's wealth depended on the Kaaba.

You have cited not one act of Muslim violence which predates the persecution of Muslims.

Passive resistance to gain influence, as in Egypt, where Qutb preached. Qutb was the main propagandist from the Muslim Brotherhood at the time. Both influenced groups like Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. There were disagreements between groups, but the influence remains.

You're still peddaling the idea that since some groups disagreed with some of Qutb's teachings, mainly that of gaining influence amongst its people, that it somehow negates all of Qutb's teachings and influence.

Some people disagreed with the idea of gaining influence? Do you include Hamas in this? Are you saying that Hamas did not want to gain influence?

I don't know. I thought you were stating that Hamas's agenda is too materialistic. That's why I posed the question.

I said what I said in the context of highlighting the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutbists. Nationalism is too worldly a thing for Qutbists. Hamas are nationalist, and thus too worldly (in the opinion of Qutbists).

"Worldly" being the other word I used in that sentence, to highlight which meaning of "materialistic" I intended.

[bigjelmapro]

So you want me to believe that the Muslims attacked people without knowing who they were -- not even knowing that they were from the Quryash, which is more extreme than your first claim that the merchants were killed for simply being Quryash.

And you cite nothing concrete to back up your claims.

That's the issue here. All of the other merchant attacks had hadiths, predominantly Bukhari, stating that there was intelligence gathering involved prior to an attack on a caravan. This attack in 623 during the month of Rejab didn't have any of these hadiths, only a convenient addition to the Quran when Mohammed found himself in a quagmire and royally pissing off a number of his converts in Medina for contradicting himself (which is not the first, but many cases of contradition). There's a reason the following relevation occurred after the booty was gathered:


They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein [Quran 2:217].

There's no mention of guilt in this verse or the hadiths regarding this surrah if these merchants were in fact Quryash prior to the attack led by Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, only that they were attacked from behind as a target of opportunity.

You can, however, at any point counter any of these claims, rather than outright denying them.

Interesting article that mentions this, amongst other topics of interest:
Muslim Scholars’ Open Letter to Pope: A Pack of Lies and Deception (http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/Scholars2Pope.htm)


So you're claiming that the rulers of Mecca were psychic and knew that Mohammed was going to boot them out for no reason at all. Knowing this, they persecuted the Muslims in order to help them out by giving them a pretext for doing what they were going to do anyway.

Who are you referring to as 'they'? The slave masters who were insulted by the conversion of slaves that insulted their religion?

Mohammed's intentions were no secret as he thoroughly insulted the polytheist and pagan religions situated there and said they should not be present in and around the Ka'aba. History shows quite well the steps taken against non-Islamic religions first in Medina, then Mecca and throughout by Arabian peninsula, apart from of course the safe haven of non-Muslim religions in Jeddah that exists today. This has perpetuated from the early mid-6th century until today.


You could at least try citing some violence by the Muslims from before they were persecuted.

I can't tell if this is an intentional approach to negate my points (knowing that there wasn't violent resistance at this point) or if this is an actual question.

The issue here with Mohammed and his followers, before they were expelled from Mecca, is that they caused instability in a city that accepted all religions and creeds and denounced the monopoly by the Quryash of the Ka'aba where Mohammed wanted the monopoly of the Ka'aba himself.


post 306:

I apologise. You said "a bit of an exaggeration."

Yes, a bit of an exaggeration to use the term. As I've stated above, it wasn't wide-swept and systematic persecution as compared to other cases of persecution which was wide-swept and systematic by those in power. Hence my reluctance to call this persecution in the literal sense. I've mentioned my reasoning for this above. Additionally, what I said is not the same what you accused me of. But nice play of words there.


You have cited not one act of Muslim violence which predates the persecution of Muslims.

Because I never made the claim of violence by the Muslims that predates this persecution. As for persecution, already responded to it. You're being redundant here.


Some people disagreed with the idea of gaining influence? Do you include Hamas in this? Are you saying that Hamas did not want to gain influence?

Now I know you're being disingenuous. I said the means in which influence is gained. I've said this repeatedly, but somehow you find this entertaining to gloss over this.


I said what I said in the context of highlighting the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutbists. Nationalism is too worldly a thing for Qutbists. Hamas are nationalist, and thus too worldly (in the opinion of Qutbists).

"Worldly" being the other word I used in that sentence, to highlight which meaning of "materialistic" I intended.
But we aren't discussing the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Qutbists here (which I don't disagree with in the first place!). I've stated that there was influence amongst the jihadist terrorist groups from Islamic jihad, Hamas to Al Qaida by Qutb to varying degrees, and thus, would suffice to link Qutb to Hamas.

Your response to this is that Hamas has nationalist ideals, that this somehow voids any and all influence by Qutb on Hamas. And my favorite rebuttal, since Qutb died before the rift between the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and the Qutbists occurred, that this influence and link is null and void.

As for nationalist ideals/goals by Hamas, I still want to see. And no, this wasn't the view of the Qutbists when you first made this claim. All I see in the Hamas charter is the establishment of an Islamic state in place of Israel and all of Palestine under Sharia law, which does adhere to the brunt of Qutb's teachings, merely the means to get there wasn't (albeit Qutb in his views to gain influence only referred to Egypt in terms of passive resistance, which was a country already ruled by Muslims, just not the right ones).

[FireGarden]

That's the issue here. All of the other merchant attacks had hadiths, predominantly Bukhari, stating that there was intelligence gathering involved prior to an attack on a caravan. This attack in 623 during the month of Rejab didn't have any of these hadiths, only a convenient addition to the Quran when Mohammed found himself in a quagmire and royally pissing off a number of his converts in Medina for contradicting himself (which is not the first, but many cases of contradition). There's a reason the following relevation occurred after the booty was gathered:


There's no mention of guilt in this verse or the hadiths regarding this surrah if these merchants were in fact Quryash prior to the attack led by Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, only that they were attacked from behind as a target of opportunity.

So you mean this raid then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_raid

Though there is no mention that the merchants were attacked from behind -- the wiki article claims the Muslims were seen and presented themselves as pilgrims. There is also no support of your claim that the merchants were identified as Quraish only after they had been attacked.

Also the merchants weren't all killed. One was killed, one escaped and two captured. (Your own link agrees with wiki on this).

In the short battle that ensued, Waqid b. Abd Allah killed Amr b. Hadrami, the leader of the Quraysh caravan. Nawfal b.Abd Allah escaped. The Muslims took Uthman b. Abd Allah and al-Hakam b. Kaysan as prisoners.

[...] However, Muhammad refused to accept the ransoms from the Quraysh until the two of his men, Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas and Utbah b. Ghazwan returned from searching the straying camel. He was afraid that the Quraysh might kill them if they found them. When Sa’d and Utbah returned unharmed, Muhammad released the two Quraysh prisoners on payment of their ransom of one thousand six hundred (1,600) Dirhams.

[...] The Islamic name of this first successful raid is the ‘Nakhla Raid.’ It was also the first raid on which the Muslims seized their first captive, and the first life they took.

Which contradicts your previous claims:

Only thing the hadiths state is that these merchants were attacked from behind and then identified to be of the Quryash tribe.

A prime example consisted during 623 AD when a group of unarmed merchants from the Quraysh tribe (to which Mohammed still belonged to) were traveling to Mecca with trading goods like raisins and animal skins. They were slaughtered, beheaded, and dismembered. These merchants were not providing logistical support or were carrying weapons bound for Mecca.

Your own link also contradicts your claim that Mohammed made up the rules of fighting in Rejab:

So they were robbed since these goods didn't belong to the raiding Mohammed party (since they weren't traveling from Mecca, but to it), it was during Rejab, these men were unarmed, they weren't providing support for any armies in Mecca, and Mohammed didn't abide by the rules of engagement that he made up.

http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/Scholars2Pope.htm

However, it was the last day of Rajab – a sacred period in the Arabian custom during which fighting and violence were prohibited. This breach of centuries-old sacred custom, devoutly respected by the Arabs, created great dissatisfaction amongst the citizens of Medina including the Muslim converts.

An Islamic reference to the Nakhla raid, from a biography of Mohammed:
http://mercytomankind.net/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/AbdullahIbnJahshRaid.html

Arriving at Nakhla, Abdullah and those with him observed a caravan carrying goods belonging to Quraysh, led by Amr ibn Al-Hadrami - Quraysh who had persecuted them, taken their property, and driven them out of their homes. This seemed to be an opportunity to exact revenge, but they hesitated as it was the last day of Rajab, one of the four holy months during which the Arabs did not fight. At least they were unsure whether it was the last day of Rajab or the first day of the month after it, as such matters cannot be decided in advance and depend upon the sighting of the new moon. If they waited until the next day, however, the caravan would enter the precincts of Mecca and be out of their reach. They thought of all they had suffered at the hands of Quraysh, and then charged forward, capturing the caravan. During the fight one man fired an arrow at Amr ibn Al-Hadrami, killing him.

So which story makes more sense?
Your story: the Muslims attacked people without bothering to find out who they were.
The Muslims story: they knew these people to be oppressors and theives.

I choose the latter.
You've nothing to support your version, which doesn't even agree with the link you gave to support it.

Who are you referring to as 'they'? The slave masters who were insulted by the conversion of slaves that insulted their religion?

All those who engaged in the persecution -- including the economic persecution.

Mohammed's intentions were no secret as he thoroughly insulted the polytheist and pagan religions situated there and said they should not be present in and around the Ka'aba. History shows quite well the steps taken against non-Islamic religions first in Medina, then Mecca and throughout by Arabian peninsula, apart from of course the safe haven of non-Muslim religions in Jeddah that exists today. This has perpetuated from the early mid-6th century until today.

Again with this.
I asked you before: how long did Muslims rule Jerusalem before they were a majority in the city? You know the relevance: it negates what you are trying to portray Islam as.

And, even if you were right, how would citing all the things which happened after many Muslims fled Mecca help you argue that the Meccans knew what was coming and were acting in pre-emptive self-defence? It doesn't. Because the Meccans weren't psychic and you cannot cite any violence from before many Muslims fled from Mecca.

I can't tell if this is an intentional approach to negate my points (knowing that there wasn't violent resistance at this point) or if this is an actual question.

It is a question which negates your point. You even admit there was no violence from the Muslims before the persecution. So on what basis do you defend the persecution?

The issue here with Mohammed and his followers, before they were expelled from Mecca, is that they caused instability in a city that accepted all religions and creeds and denounced the monopoly by the Quryash of the Ka'aba where Mohammed wanted the monopoly of the Ka'aba himself.

You're back to defending the right of those with a monopoply to defend their monopoly with violence. Even against those who only speak out against them. So, if today I was to challenge the power of the Catholic Church (with atheist speeches) this would permit what kind of response? Please elaborate. And, if that response included persecution of those who took up atheism, would I be wrong to respond? And, if I did respond, would this then vindicate the persecution meted out by the Catholics?

Yes, a bit of an exaggeration to use the term. As I've stated above, it wasn't wide-swept and systematic persecution as compared to other cases of persecution which was wide-swept and systematic by those in power. Hence my reluctance to call this persecution in the literal sense. I've mentioned my reasoning for this above. Additionally, what I said is not the same what you accused me of. But nice play of words there.

I accused you of calling it an exaggeration. Which, I admited, was itself an exaggeration. You merely called it "a bit of an exaggeration".

Because I never made the claim of violence by the Muslims that predates this persecution. As for persecution, already responded to it. You're being redundant here.

But you've not justified the persecution except to point out that others have suffered worse. People can be killed/staked to the ground in the sun/have rocks piled on their body/be robbed... but worse things happen at sea! Being economicly shunned isn't persecution in the real sense.

So now that we've sketched out the bigjel-scale of persecution... Let's get onto the matter of answering if the persecution was justified.

Now I know you're being disingenuous. I said the means in which influence is gained. I've said this repeatedly, but somehow you find this entertaining to gloss over this.

No. You didn't say "means".
You also didn't give any details as to how they differed.

I have given more details as to how the Qutbists and the Brotherhood differed. You've waffled on about how Hamas didn't like Qutb's teachings of passive resistance -- teaching of pacifism which don't advocate pacifism, to boot.

But we aren't discussing the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Qutbists here (which I don't disagree with in the first place!).

That's right!
We're discussing your attempt to link Hamas to Qutb via the Brotherhood. This doesn't work because, as you agree, the Brotherhood and Qutb have disagreements.

So you are going to have to take a different, more detailed route.

I've stated that there was influence amongst the jihadist terrorist groups from Islamic jihad, Hamas to Al Qaida by Qutb to varying degrees, and thus, would suffice to link Qutb to Hamas.

I don't understand that sentence.
If you are trying to link Hamas to Qutb via al-Qaeda, then you should be aware that Hamas recently fought against an al-Qaeda cell in Gaza -- just after the latter declared an Islamic Emirate. (See articles below for more Salafist/Hamas rivalry).

Your response to this is that Hamas has nationalist ideals, that this somehow voids any and all influence by Qutb on Hamas.

My claim is: nationalist ideals are too worldly for Qutbists. You'll have to link Hamas to Qutb some other way.

As for nationalist ideals/goals by Hamas, I still want to see.

You are claiming now that Hamas are not nationalist? Then you describe the kind of nation they are fighting for.

And no, this wasn't the view of the Qutbists when you first made this claim.

I don't understand this sentence, either.

All I see in the Hamas charter is the establishment of an Islamic state in place of Israel and all of Palestine under Sharia law, which does adhere to the brunt of Qutb's teachings, merely the means to get there wasn't (albeit Qutb in his views to gain influence only referred to Egypt in terms of passive resistance, which was a country already ruled by Muslims, just not the right ones).

So, again....
The Jihadists that lionize Qutb and seek to overthrow governments in Muslim countries (like that of Mubarak in Egypt) through violent means... they don't follow Qutb. I guess they should pay more attention to what the bloke said.... No not the takfiri stuff, that might encourage them to use violence in Egypt, like they have done in the past.

I'm thinking of people like Zawahiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri#Upbringing_and_education), another former member of the Brotherhood, one of those very influenced by Qutb and believed to be responsible for attacks in Egypt.


Here's another Salafist:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566740,00.html

Abu Mustafa is not fond of speaking with journalists. It is still risky for the group to come out of hiding, since Hamas -- the Palestinian Islamist group which controls the Gaza Strip -- views Salafis with suspicion.

[...] Abu Mustafa says, he and his comrades in arms realize they need to be patient. There's a long way to go before they can begin their struggle for global influence. First, they have to take care of an enemy closer to home: Hamas.

So far, Hamas has done what it can to keep the Salafis under control. They know the ultra-radicals are just waiting to take over Hamas' position of leadership. "They are traitors," Abu Mustafa says of Hamas. "Compared to us, they are Islamism lite."

Nevertheless, he's willing to be merciful. "We will give them the chance to turn away from the false path," he says. And what happens if they don't take up the offer? "Then there will be confrontation," Abu Mustafa promises, bringing his fists together. Still, he doesn't think it likely that the Salafis will have to take up arms against Hamas. "It won't be necessary. They will destroy themselves."

[...] "Hamas represents an American style of Islam. They have tried to curry favor."

[...] For his part, Abu Mustafa claims he is not afraid of death. He says he is not fighting for worldly things. And he hopes he will fall in the struggle for his beliefs.

"On the other hand," he says before pushing himself up and limping back to his car, "I would love to see my daughter wed. Maybe she will marry first, and then I will become a martyr."

Oh noes! he has worldly concerns. He's almost as American as Hamas! ;)


You might also find this blog interesting:
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/07/zawahiri_cant_believe_his_luck

I found the speigel interview via the above, which had led to this:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/01/04/worse-outcomes-than-a-strengthened-hamas/

Pick your way through the links, if you like. But they're blogs, I give them as sources of links.

[bigjelmapro]

So you mean this raid then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_raid

Though there is no mention that the merchants were attacked from behind -- the wiki article claims the Muslims were seen and presented themselves as pilgrims. There is also no support of your claim that the merchants were identified as Quraish only after they had been attacked.

It was a legitimate assumption that this caravan was not identified as belonging to the Quraysh, as presented in the article linked, those running the caravan identified themselves as pilgrims. I'll have to dig up the article that states that they were attacked from behind, since the article only mentions that they were attacked they were preparing food. So this is not so far-fetched from the article given.


Also the merchants weren't all killed. One was killed, one escaped and two captured. (Your own link agrees with wiki on this).

There are other articles that state that 2 were killed and the other 1 or 2 (some sources disagree that there were 3 or 4 total) were taken captive and sold into slavery.

And I didn't say all were killed either.


Which contradicts your previous claims:

Your own link also contradicts your claim that Mohammed made up the rules of fighting in Rejab.

I admit that he didn't make up the concept of non-violence during Rejab. I will state again: I don't see the relevance of splitting hairs over who made up the concept of Rejab has to do with anything? In addition to my admission to the adoption of this practice several posts ago. Its passe.


So which story makes more sense?
Your story: the Muslims attacked people without bothering to find out who they were.
The Muslims story: they knew these people to be oppressors and theives.

Link given in the beginning states nothing along the lines of the Muslim raiding party knowing the caravan's identity (other than pilgrims) or whether they were involved in any appropriation of goods when Mohammed fled Mecca. So are you or are not arguing that this caravan was identified as Quraysh and thus automatically guilty of stealing from them (guilt by association)? You have no evidence to support your position.

You state oppressors once again, who were they? The slave owners or the Quraysh leadership who imposed economic sanctions against Mohammed for trying to destablize Mecca?

Sounds more to me that you believe the romantisized version of events and are playing the role of the apologist. Even the link provided states that Mohammed's intentions were to force the Quraysh 'to come to terms with them'.


All those who engaged in the persecution -- including the economic persecution.

So sanctions translates into persecution now? Again, nice play of words.


Again with this.
I asked you before: how long did Muslims rule Jerusalem before they were a majority in the city? You know the relevance: it negates what you are trying to portray Islam as.

And again. Relevance? You keep digging up the same rebuttal that is irrelevant to the point I've made (care to re-read it?). Instead of trying to play the card of me trying to attack all of Islam and dub them as 'evil-doers', which is what I understand from your posts, how about actually arguing the points.


And, even if you were right, how would citing all the things which happened after many Muslims fled Mecca help you argue that the Meccans knew what was coming and were acting in pre-emptive self-defence? It doesn't. Because the Meccans weren't psychic and you cannot cite any violence from before many Muslims fled from Mecca.

Who argued 'pre-emptive self-defence'? As I've stated before. Mohammed preached and only managed to get a small amount of followers. Then he started to insult the state of religious equality enforced by the Quraysh in Mecca and the Ka'aba stating that polythiesm is a disgrace and should not be allowed there. These insults escalated to the point where Quraysh imposed economic sanctions on Mohammed since he threatened the stability of Mecca. Then it got to the point where he was expelled from Mecca and went to Medina. At this point, several months later, Mohammed started attacking caravans with the intention of acquiring wealth (not to attain what was lost in Mecca) and thus followers with this new found wealth. At this point, with the raids in full motion, did the Quraysh in Mecca take offensive action against these bandits (which is what they were). So nothing pre-emptive about it.

Short exerpt:


What started the Battle of the Trench?

Many causes feed into any conflict, but one stands out. Muslim raiders harassed Meccan trade. Modern Saudi biographer Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri expresses the right idea: . . . "[I]t was wise for the Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah [Mecca] under their control" (p. 201). Then he lists eight raids between 623 and the Battle of Badr in AD 624. In each one, Muslims were the aggressors, to accomplish the big objective of strangling Mecca’s trade. These raids that sometimes involved hundreds of men continued steadily from that time to the Battle of the Trench. The Meccans had had enough. So they wanted to finish off Islam, once and for all.

From Muhammad’s point of view, he wanted the Kabah shrine in Mecca, and if this goal involved hindering Meccan trade, then so be it. Two early Medinan suras or chapters (2 and 8) reveal his outlook. Sura 2:189-196 and 216-218 command Muslims to fight the Quraysh because this tribe wanted to control their own shrine, even if this entailed prohibiting the Muslims, who were hampering the large tribe’s trade, from visiting it. Next, Sura 2:125-129 asserts without a shred of evidence that Abraham built and purified the shrine, and now Muhammad the monotheist is the best representative of this patriarch. He claimed this while he lived in Mecca, too (Sura 14:35-41). So in effect the shrine belonged to him by revelation, before it actually did by conquest (in early AD 630). Finally, in Sura 8:30-40, the prophet recounts his persecution back in Mecca and why the Quraysh are not the rightful guardians of the shrine. They barred people from it—never mind that about eight years later the prophet will bar pagans from the shrine. All Arab polytheists will be forced to convert or die.

It is impossible (for me at least) to escape the impression that if Muhammad had put aside this desire to control the Kabah, then much of the conflict between him and the Quraysh would never have erupted in the first place. But the shrine was a popular place of religious pilgrimage, so how could he allow religious freedom for polytheists?




It is a question which negates your point. You even admit there was no violence from the Muslims before the persecution. So on what basis do you defend the persecution?

Who says I'm defending persecution of a handful of slaves who coverted to Islam, and whose slave owners were insulted by the offense that Mohammed posed on the slave owners' beliefs? I fail to see how this negates my point. Sounds more to me that you are making up a side-argument to save face.


You're back to defending the right of those with a monopoply to defend their monopoly with violence. Even against those who only speak out against them. So, if today I was to challenge the power of the Catholic Church (with atheist speeches) this would permit what kind of response? Please elaborate. And, if that response included persecution of those who took up atheism, would I be wrong to respond? And, if I did respond, would this then vindicate the persecution meted out by the Catholics?

Difference between speaking out against them and thoroughly insulting a number of adherents to other belief systems. And I'm not defending anything, just stating that the reaction to Mohammed by the Quraysh is not far-fetched. In addition, the fleeing of the followers of Mohammed after Mohammed left himself was also common for those who didn't have the protection of a clan. Mohammed himself went through this fearing for his life whilst not being under the protection of a clan.

And here again, you're stating systematic of Mohammed and his followers by the Quraysh, which is not true.

As for your straw man argument, would this 'challenge' involve a claim of ownership of the catholic church (ie the vatican, if it would represent the ka'aba) and that nobody else should be permitted in the vatican besides your group of followers? Obviously, with all the attached libelous attacks.


But you've not justified the persecution except to point out that others have suffered worse. People can be killed/staked to the ground in the sun/have rocks piled on their body/be robbed... but worse things happen at sea! Being economicly shunned isn't persecution in the real sense.

So now that we've sketched out the bigjel-scale of persecution... Let's get onto the matter of answering if the persecution was justified.

You're running here with the claim that the Quraysh instituted a system of persecution (which I rebutted many times not to be) and that I'm somehow justifying any of the cases of persecution of slave converts by their slaveowners. So redundant, yet again.


No. You didn't say "means".
You also didn't give any details as to how they differed.

I have given more details as to how the Qutbists and the Brotherhood differed. You've waffled on about how Hamas didn't like Qutb's teachings of passive resistance -- teaching of pacifism which don't advocate pacifism, to boot.

I said 'methods' instead of 'means' in some posts and 'means' in others, so sorry for my inconsistency (/sarcasm). How about you get yourself a thesaurus and stop bothering me with this obsessive behavior regarding semantics (even when there's no argument of semantics).

Again, passive resistance != pacifism.

Again, we're not arguing the difference between Qutbists and the Muslim Brotherhood, only that Qutb has influenced Hamas and that a link exists as such. If you want to argue this side-argument in the corner, then by all means. These deflections are getting a bit tiresome and these responses a bit lengthy especially when you're arguing points that I've never claimed in the first place.


That's right!
We're discussing your attempt to link Hamas to Qutb via the Brotherhood. This doesn't work because, as you agree, the Brotherhood and Qutb have disagreements.

So you are going to have to take a different, more detailed route.

There isn't a link because they have disagreements? There's no influence because they have disagreements?

Thanks for admitting this illogical stance of yours.


I don't understand that sentence.
If you are trying to link Hamas to Qutb via al-Qaeda, then you should be aware that Hamas recently fought against an al-Qaeda cell in Gaza -- just after the latter declared an Islamic Emirate. (See articles below for more Salafist/Hamas rivalry).

Listen mate. I don't care about rivalries, disagreements or squabbles. I've only stated there's influence and thus a link.


My claim is: nationalist ideals are too worldly for Qutbists. You'll have to link Hamas to Qutb some other way.

As per the statement you didn't understand. You argued that Hamas have nationalist ideals/goals. I asked you to provide evidence for this. Then you inserted that this is the viewpoint of Qutbists, which wasn't your original point. I agree with the points you made of Qutbists view of Hamas. Just not yours of Hamas.


You are claiming now that Hamas are not nationalist? Then you describe the kind of nation they are fighting for.

An Islamic state governed by sharia law. Anti-capitalist, anti-western, and a precursor to Hassan al-Banna's vision of an Islamic empire. So a stepping stone from the superificial term of 'nationalist', which apart from a fleeting mention of it in Hamas's charter, I don't see the term's orthodox use of a unique national Palestinian identity rising above Hamas's plans for a vanilla Islamic state.


...
So, again....
The Jihadists that lionize Qutb and seek to overthrow governments in Muslim countries (like that of Mubarak in Egypt) through violent means... they don't follow Qutb. I guess they should pay more attention to what the bloke said.... No not the takfiri stuff, that might encourage them to use violence in Egypt, like they have done in the past.

Gone through a few links. I don't disagree with how different terrorist groups adhere to Qutbist principles more than others. I would like to point out again that this is not the argument I've made and that this post has gone in a direction which feels more like a need for you to expose your knowledge regarding Qutbism rather than me simply stating that a link exists between the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutism, and Hamas/Islamic Jihad, which is the point I've made. Sure there's disagreements in the direction and methods, but that's it, they're disagreements.

This is all I've said and am going to say. But thanks for the links.

[FireGarden]

It was a legitimate assumption that this caravan was not identified as belonging to the Quraysh, as presented in the article linked, those running the caravan identified themselves as pilgrims.

The article says the Quraysh thought the Muslims were pilgrims.

There are other articles that state that 2 were killed and the other 1 or 2 (some sources disagree that there were 3 or 4 total) were taken captive and sold into slavery.

And I didn't say all were killed either.

You said "They were slaughtered, beheaded, and dismembered." without qualifiaction. This clearly implies all.

Link given in the beginning states nothing along the lines of the Muslim raiding party knowing the caravan's identity (other than pilgrims) or whether they were involved in any appropriation of goods when Mohammed fled Mecca.

The wiki link doesn't say the caravan was identified as pilgrims.

So are you or are not arguing that this caravan was identified as Quraysh and thus automatically guilty of stealing from them (guilt by association)? You have no evidence to support your position.

I provided the link and quoted. You seemed to miss it:
http://mercytomankind.net/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/AbdullahIbnJahshRaid.html

Arriving at Nakhla, Abdullah and those with him observed a caravan carrying goods belonging to Quraysh, led by Amr ibn Al-Hadrami - Quraysh who had persecuted them, taken their property, and driven them out of their homes. This seemed to be an opportunity to exact revenge, but they hesitated as it was the last day of Rajab, one of the four holy months during which the Arabs did not fight. At least they were unsure whether it was the last day of Rajab or the first day of the month after it, as such matters cannot be decided in advance and depend upon the sighting of the new moon. If they waited until the next day, however, the caravan would enter the precincts of Mecca and be out of their reach. They thought of all they had suffered at the hands of Quraysh, and then charged forward, capturing the caravan. During the fight one man fired an arrow at Amr ibn Al-Hadrami, killing him.

You state oppressors once again, who were they? The slave owners or the Quraysh leadership who imposed economic sanctions against Mohammed for trying to destablize Mecca?

One of them is named in the link above as Amr ibn Al-Hadrami -- he was leading the caravan.

So sanctions translates into persecution now? Again, nice play of words.

Sanctions against those who have committed no crime... Yes, it is persecution.

And again. Relevance? You keep digging up the same rebuttal that is irrelevant to the point I've made (care to re-read it?). Instead of trying to play the card of me trying to attack all of Islam and dub them as 'evil-doers', which is what I understand from your posts, how about actually arguing the points.

Again, there were no qualifications in your words to indicate who you were targeting.

Who argued 'pre-emptive self-defence'?

You do. You have offered no justification for the persecution of Muslims except for things they did AFTER being persecuted. Oh... And they offered an alternative religion.

As I've stated before. Mohammed preached and only managed to get a small amount of followers. Then he started to insult the state of religious equality enforced by the Quraysh in Mecca and the Ka'aba stating that polythiesm is a disgrace and should not be allowed there. These insults escalated to the point where Quraysh imposed economic sanctions on Mohammed since he threatened the stability of Mecca.

You make these allegations with no evidence that any stability was threatened. And you pretend there was some kind of pagan Golden Age in Mecca -- also without providing evidence.

Then it got to the point where he was expelled from Mecca and went to Medina.

No, he was not expelled. He fled because his uncle, who had enough influence to protect him, died. btw, according to many traditions, this uncle never converted to Islam.

At this point, several months later, Mohammed started attacking caravans with the intention of acquiring wealth (not to attain what was lost in Mecca) and thus followers with this new found wealth. At this point, with the raids in full motion, did the Quraysh in Mecca take offensive action against these bandits (which is what they were). So nothing pre-emptive about it.

The "pre-emptive" referred to the persecution, which you cannot justify so you minimise it and move the start of everything to violence by Muslims. But that's not where things started. When you stop pretending that this was were things started, then you can begin to see other motives for the actions.

Short exerpt:

Your url didn't come through. But did you notice how you, again, reference battles from after Muslims were persecuted. From AFTER they fled from Mecca to Ethiopia, etc.

The event you reference is not the beginning of the violence.

Who says I'm defending persecution of a handful of slaves who coverted to Islam, and whose slave owners were insulted by the offense that Mohammed posed on the slave owners' beliefs? I fail to see how this negates my point. Sounds more to me that you are making up a side-argument to save face.

You do attempt to minimise it and remove it from the context of Muslim actions at the time. That is a form of defence.

What do you think should have been done in response to the persecution?

Difference between speaking out against them and thoroughly insulting a number of adherents to other belief systems.

So violence is okay after strong insults?

And I'm not defending anything, just stating that the reaction to Mohammed by the Quraysh is not far-fetched.

So you're not defending it but you want to point out that the reaction -- the persecution -- was not far-fetched. Is that the same as not beyond the pale (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/64100.html)? ie: that it is understandable, even acceptable?

In addition, the fleeing of the followers of Mohammed after Mohammed left himself was also common for those who didn't have the protection of a clan. Mohammed himself went through this fearing for his life whilst not being under the protection of a clan.

Mohammed was far from the first to leave. As I stated before, many fled to Ethiopia -- around 615.

As for your straw man argument, would this 'challenge' involve a claim of ownership of the catholic church (ie the vatican, if it would represent the ka'aba) and that nobody else should be permitted in the vatican besides your group of followers? Obviously, with all the attached libelous attacks.

When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?

And, yes, the Vatican belongs to me. I bought it from Bob. I currently have no plans to throw the Catholics out. Let's see how things progress. Maybe they won't try to kill me or my followers.

Again, passive resistance != pacifism.

So passive resistance includes violence?

Again, we're not arguing the difference between Qutbists and the Muslim Brotherhood, only that Qutb has influenced Hamas and that a link exists as such.

But you argue that this influence exists because Hamas is part of the Muslim brotherhood. What else have you provided?

There isn't a link because they have disagreements? There's no influence because they have disagreements?

That's not it at all.
The point is you have to be more direct in describing those links than merely saying they must exist. You have not.

The fact the Qutbists denegrate the Brotherhood indicates that some of the differences are quite substantial.

Listen mate. I don't care about rivalries, disagreements or squabbles. I've only stated there's influence and thus a link.

Try to do so in more detail.

As per the statement you didn't understand. You argued that Hamas have nationalist ideals/goals. I asked you to provide evidence for this. Then you inserted that this is the viewpoint of Qutbists, which wasn't your original point. I agree with the points you made of Qutbists view of Hamas. Just not yours of Hamas.

What I said was always regarding what Qutbists think of Hamas. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

An Islamic state governed by sharia law. Anti-capitalist, anti-western, and a precursor to Hassan al-Banna's vision of an Islamic empire. So a stepping stone from the superificial term of 'nationalist', which apart from a fleeting mention of it in Hamas's charter, I don't see the term's orthodox use of a unique national Palestinian identity rising above Hamas's plans for a vanilla Islamic state.

I don't see why wanting a state, even an Islamic state, isn't a form of nationalism.

Gone through a few links. I don't disagree with how different terrorist groups adhere to Qutbist principles more than others. I would like to point out again that this is not the argument I've made and that this post has gone in a direction which feels more like a need for you to expose your knowledge regarding Qutbism rather than me simply stating that a link exists between the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutism, and Hamas/Islamic Jihad, which is the point I've made.

But you've not detailed those links.
When an organisation splits, people need terms to describe the two parts. In this case, the mainstream Brotherhood (while not totally repudiating everything the splitters ever provided) are one strand. The splitters have a name: Qutbists.

To apply that name to a group without giving details is to imply that the group belongs to the splitters. Hamas do not. That is why you should give more detail when trying to link Hamas with Qutb.

[bigjelmapro]

The article says the Quraysh thought the Muslims were pilgrims.

Yes, with the shaved head bit. You could combine it with the response below.

You said "They were slaughtered, beheaded, and dismembered." without qualifiaction. This clearly implies all.

Oh yeah, forgot that ambiguous statement I made over 4 pages ago which has no relevance to any of the the arguments at hand (I see a trend).
How about asking me for clarification rather than making an accusation from a statement that in normal use would usually have inserted the term ‘all’ if the intention was to unequivocally imply all? Here again, we aren’t in disagreement.

The wiki link doesn't say the caravan was identified as pilgrims.

Yep. Misread it. The caravan was still not identified until by name after the raid, not before. Unless you are using the site below which conveniently justifies the bandits’ actions.

I provided the link and quoted. You seemed to miss it:
http://mercytomankind.net/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/AbdullahIbnJahshRaid.html

Nope. I didn't miss it. I equate this to evangelical websites and the use of them as some sort of historical account is quite frankly, unorthodox and definitely subjective.

I did quote a small excerpt of how Mohammed and his followers used the attacks on along their trade route as 'to make Quraysh come to terms with them.'

One of them is named in the link above as Amr ibn Al-Hadrami -- he was leading the caravan.

Yep. A scapegoat. He's mentioned in passing as a justification for bloodshed.


Sanctions against those who have committed no crime... Yes, it is persecution.

Then perhaps apply this to modern times, which I assume is more fair and just than the 7th century, that sanctions is a form of persecution outright. I cannot find any evidence against other religions that were critical of the Quraysh having economic sanctions imposed upon them and certainly not reactions as harsh against the Quraysh.

Again, there were no qualifications in your words to indicate who you were targeting.

Perhaps as a litmus test from the abundance of posts I've made on this forum, you can ascertain that what you allege has never been my intention and will never been my intention. You can go cherry picking through all the posts I've made, as you have done above, and manage to find an ambiguous post and run with some interesting allegations. Again, how this has any relevance other than putting me on the defensive, I don't see.


You do. You have offered no justification for the persecution of Muslims except for things they did AFTER being persecuted. Oh... And they offered an alternative religion.

Offering is one thing, forcing and insulting another set of religious beliefs is another thing. Again, you are once again insinuating a systematic persecution by the Quraysh, outside of isolated cases of violence from slave owner to slave, which you have failed to provide evidence for outside of being isolated cases.
Again, you are stating as if I'm justifying any of the violence that did occur before Mohammed and the brunt of his followers left Mecca, which I have not. We are talking about the 7th century here, this can be seen as a natural reaction to Mohammed in what he was preaching.

As a counter-example, how would you account for the Christian evangelism and Jewish preaching during the same century and prior, both of whom were critical of the 260 pagan idols in the Ka’aba as well? To my knowledge, the Quraysh didn’t persecute these monotheistic religions either for their criticism against the Ka’aba or their control of it. So the reaction by the Quraysh, as stated by Mohammed and his justification for his plundering and killing, is unfounded (as systematic) and definitely not a justifiable reaction.

Another interesting article, this time by an x-Muslim:

On Good and Evil - Muslim Umma Lessons from the Nakhla Raid (http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/good-and-evil-muslim-umma-lessons-nakhla-raid)


You make these allegations with no evidence that any stability was threatened. And you pretend there was some kind of pagan Golden Age in Mecca -- also without providing evidence.

And what do I get from you? Evidence from whitewashing websites to justify attacks against any and all Quraysh? I didn’t claim a ‘Golden Age’, I claimed stability and Mecca as a melting pot of a number of different belief systems. Do you claim that after 630 AD that Mecca and those who ruled it have the same outlook towards other belief systems just as under the Quraysh?
Give a counter claim with something a bit less laughable than Mohammed's intentions were so 'merciful' and 'egalitarian' as these links of your would like me to believe. Compare this to the actual result of the eviction of all the other religions from the Ka'aba (fact) and the subjugation of all non-Muslim (fact) on the Arabian peninsula during Mohammed's reign (and subsequent caliph rulers following Mohammed's teachings).

Or would you like to justify or white wash this further that this was all justifiable from the isolated cases violence from slave-owner to slave and economic sanctions against Mohammed AND (let me not forget) the appropriation of goods from Mohammed and his followers when they left Mecca? If the raids and theft were limited to simple survival and living a pious life, then sure, you would have a point. Rather, as seen by countless examples, this was merely a power struggle and using theft as a means to force tribes into treaties with Mohammed.

So do you or do you not think these were appropriate actions?


No, he was not expelled. He fled because his uncle, who had enough influence to protect him, died. btw, according to many traditions, this uncle never converted to Islam.

And? This is where his support ended. This clan protection, along with an abundance of pre-Islamic practices/traditions adopted by Islam, trumps the belief system of said person, at this point anyhow. Whether the death of his uncle, and end of his protection, or whether the resistance Mohammed faced from his proclamations of his prophecy and only true religion in Mecca was the straw that broke the camel's back, is moot.


The "pre-emptive" referred to the persecution, which you cannot justify so you minimise it and move the start of everything to violence by Muslims. But that's not where things started. When you stop pretending that this was were things started, then you can begin to see other motives for the actions.

As long as you can stop pretending that this was systematic and everything and any violence by Mohammed thereafter is a perfect reaction to the ridicule he faced in Mecca. There’s nothing to minimize if it’s already blown out of proportion.
A similar concept would be for me to state that pimp violence against their hookers is a form of institutionalized and persistent persecution by the local government where the pimp resides.


Your url didn't come through. But did you notice how you, again, reference battles from after Muslims were persecuted. From AFTER they fled from Mecca to Ethiopia, etc.

Google is your friend: Muhammad and Massacre of the Qurayza Jews ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/muhammad_and_massacre_of_the_q.html)
So economic sanctions justifies theft and slaughter? Good to know where your moral compass lies. As for those who fled to Ethiopia, wouldn’t you attribute this to the lack of clan protection Mohammed’s followers had?

The event you reference is not the beginning of the violence.

You’re obsessed with where the beginning lies, yet ignore provocation and the failed logic that this was not encountered to the extent, as Mohammed and his scholars explain, by any other group residing in and around Mecca.


You do attempt to minimise it and remove it from the context of Muslim actions at the time. That is a form of defence.

And you merely exaggerate the context in order to justify simple theft and murder as a justifiable means of defense, a defense, which boggles the mind as even being a form of defense.

There was no organized reaction (as in past the raiding and reaction to the raiding, as in full-blown battles) by the Quraysh until after the Nakhla raid, which was the point where the relationship between the Quraysh and Mohammed soured for the worse.

What do you think should have been done in response to the persecution?



So you're not defending it but you want to point out that the reaction -- the persecution -- was not far-fetched. Is that the same as not beyond the pale (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/64100.html)? ie: that it is understandable, even acceptable?

Persecution, as in your perception of it, economic sanctions, yes, is not far-fetched. Begs to question what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh. You sure it was just another introduction of a religion of the dozens already existing there?


When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?

When he claimed ownership of it by divine right.


But you argue that this influence exists because Hamas is part of the Muslim brotherhood. What else have you provided?

You keep asking what I've already provided.


The fact the Qutbists denegrate the Brotherhood indicates that some of the differences are quite substantial.

Yet again, we aren't arguing differences, we're arguing influence.


I don't see why wanting a state, even an Islamic state, isn't a form of nationalism.

As I've previously stated, Hamas doesn't preach a distinct Palestinian nationalistic identity. Hamas doesn't preach a form of nationalism which is reminiscient of Western


But you've not detailed those links.
When an organisation splits, people need terms to describe the two parts. In this case, the mainstream Brotherhood (while not totally repudiating everything the splitters ever provided) are one strand. The splitters have a name: Qutbists.

To apply that name to a group without giving details is to imply that the group belongs to the splitters. Hamas do not. That is why you should give more detail when trying to link Hamas with Qutb.
We're making some progress: "while not totally repudiating everything the splitters ever provided".

Links to Hamas' preaching and that of Qutb, ie "Our Battle Against the Jews" and "Milestones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism
-"vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam"
-"adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but complete freedom from servitude, peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery and other benefits;"
-"vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam "

This is enamated by Hamas and its leadership. These are just a few points where Hamas would be connected the Qutb. Definitely not a carbon copy of eachother, but that wasn't my point to begin with. Simply to state influence.

[FireGarden]

Yep. Misread it. The caravan was still not identified until by name after the raid, not before. Unless you are using the site below which conveniently justifies the bandits’ actions.

It makes more sense than your claim, which is that the merchants were attacked without first being identified. A claim you base only on absence of evidence to the contrary rather than any positive evidence to support the claim.

Then perhaps apply this to modern times, which I assume is more fair and just than the 7th century, that sanctions is a form of persecution outright.

Sanctions against people who have committed no crime... That is persecution.

Offering is one thing, forcing and insulting another set of religious beliefs is another thing.

Where was the force? You have not been able to cite any. And insults justify persecution? I don't agree.

Again, you are once again insinuating a systematic persecution by the Quraysh, outside of isolated cases of violence from slave owner to slave, which you have failed to provide evidence for outside of being isolated cases.

So more details of the bigjel-scale of persecution emerge. Killing a few slaves, putting them under rocks until they recant... Doesn't count as persecution unless it was done enough.

Again, you are stating as if I'm justifying any of the violence that did occur before Mohammed and the brunt of his followers left Mecca, which I have not.

You've removed it from the discourse because you don't want to consider it as motive for attacking caravans. "Whitewash" might be more accurate than "justify", but there is some overlap.

We are talking about the 7th century here, this can be seen as a natural reaction to Mohammed in what he was preaching.

See... You call it a natural reaction. What am I supposed to infer from that?

As a counter-example, how would you account for the Christian evangelism and Jewish preaching during the same century and prior, both of whom were critical of the 260 pagan idols in the Ka’aba as well? To my knowledge, the Quraysh didn’t persecute these monotheistic religions either for their criticism against the Ka’aba or their control of it. So the reaction by the Quraysh, as stated by Mohammed and his justification for his plundering and killing, is unfounded (as systematic) and definitely not a justifiable reaction.

Really, where was this preaching and evangelising done? How successful was it? How much of a risk to the tourist trade -- err, sorry, pilgrim trade -- at Mecca did it become?

Another interesting article, this time by an x-Muslim:

On Good and Evil - Muslim Umma Lessons from the Nakhla Raid (http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/good-and-evil-muslim-umma-lessons-nakhla-raid)

I got this far:

To try to survive, Muhammad set out to attack the rich caravans of Quraysh. After all, they were the ones who pestered him many years in the past, day in and day out. His first few attempts were flat out failures.

He uses the word "pester" to describe the torture and killing of slaves and the rest of the persecution which led to Muslims fleeing to Ethiopia in 615.

Somehow I don't think "pester" is the proper word.

Compare this to the actual result of the eviction of all the other religions from the Ka'aba (fact) and the subjugation of all non-Muslim (fact) on the Arabian peninsula during Mohammed's reign (and subsequent caliph rulers following Mohammed's teachings).

More references to what happened after the persecution started.

Or would you like to justify or white wash this further that this was all justifiable from the isolated cases violence from slave-owner to slave and economic sanctions against Mohammed AND (let me not forget) the appropriation of goods from Mohammed and his followers when they left Mecca? If the raids and theft were limited to simple survival and living a pious life, then sure, you would have a point. Rather, as seen by countless examples, this was merely a power struggle and using theft as a means to force tribes into treaties with Mohammed.

I've not claimed the raids were a matter of survival. I've claimed they were trying to get justice for stolen goods and persecution.

Neither have I blamed all events on the persecution. Things have a habit of escalating, such as the Battle of Badr which happened when Abu Sufyan's caravan sidestepped an attempted raid.

You've still not said how you would have reacted to the persecution. You see a slave being tortured because he is a Muslim. What do you do? Do you turn a blind eye saying, "Oh, better to leave things alone. If I step in, it might escalate into a big war."

As long as you can stop pretending that this was systematic and everything and any violence by Mohammed thereafter is a perfect reaction to the ridicule he faced in Mecca. There’s nothing to minimize if it’s already blown out of proportion.

Referring to sanctions, theft and the killing of slaves as "ridicule" isn't in any way minimising anything of any importance. It certainly isn't an attempt to whitewash or justify anything.

Apparently...

A similar concept would be for me to state that pimp violence against their hookers is a form of institutionalized and persistent persecution by the local government where the pimp resides.

I don't get that analogy.

So economic sanctions justifies theft and slaughter?

Where did I say that?

As for those who fled to Ethiopia, wouldn’t you attribute this to the lack of clan protection Mohammed’s followers had?

Protection from what? Are you admiting they were persecuted?

There was no organized reaction (as in past the raiding and reaction to the raiding, as in full-blown battles) by the Quraysh until after the Nakhla raid, which was the point where the relationship between the Quraysh and Mohammed soured for the worse.

So the Quraysh didn't react to the reaction until after the reaction to the reaction that... Wait, I'm confused. What preceeded the persecution of Muslims? Preaching. Successful preaching. Nobody would have bothered if the preaching wasn't successful. And some insults.

What do you think should have been done in response to the persecution?

I support self-defence, even through violence.

Persecution, as in your perception of it, economic sanctions, yes, is not far-fetched. Begs to question what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh. You sure it was just another introduction of a religion of the dozens already existing there?

So, having admited you are unable to cite any violence from before the persecution, you must resort to: "I wonder what they did to deserve it? It must have been something to get such a stern reaction."

When he claimed ownership of it by divine right.

Cite this, please. Remember, the question is: "When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?"

Not: "When did Mohammed first say that the Ka'aba was special to Islam?"

We're making some progress: "while not totally repudiating everything the splitters ever provided".

Links to Hamas' preaching and that of Qutb, ie "Our Battle Against the Jews" and "Milestones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism
-"vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam"
-"adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but complete freedom from servitude, peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery and other benefits;"
-"vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam "

This is enamated by Hamas and its leadership. These are just a few points where Hamas would be connected the Qutb. Definitely not a carbon copy of eachother, but that wasn't my point to begin with. Simply to state influence.

So no attempt to just throw Qutb in there and hope to link Hamas with al-Qaeda. I'm so relieved.

[bigjelmapro]

It makes more sense than your claim, which is that the merchants were attacked without first being identified. A claim you base only on absence of evidence to the contrary rather than any positive evidence to support the claim.

There's no evidence that they were identified before-hand. The raiding party led by Abdallah Bin Jahsh is a known leader and is well-known for his violence. I simply don't believe that these merchants didn't recognize this fellow along with any other members of his raiding party simply because they had shaven heads and were mistaken for pilgrims. Hence my position that the merchants didn't recognize them or that the raiding party didn't identify the merchants as being Quraysh or the more extreme accusation from the link you gave, that the any or all of the merchants were identified as being guilty of theft of Mohammed and his followers' goods.
Until you provide more concrete evidence rather than these subjective, religious sites that state Mohammed as some pious man, this point stands.


Sanctions against people who have committed no crime... That is persecution.

Then this is your position to whoever endures sanctions, be they in Iran, Gaza, or North Korea, is a form of persecution. Fair enough. I simply don't agree with this position that economic sanctions to the followers of a leader who claims ownership of the Ka'aba, exclusive access, and insults other religions as persecution. I see it as a natural reaction by the Quraysh, which I again, don't see against any other monotheistic religion who insulted the idolty practiced at the Ka'aba enduring similar reactions by the Quraysh in the form of economic sanctions.


Where was the force? You have not been able to cite any. And insults justify persecution? I don't agree.

Claiming ownership of the Ka'aba and threatening exclusive access and the resulting economic sanctions on Mohammed was the result.


So more details of the bigjel-scale of persecution emerge. Killing a few slaves, putting them under rocks until they recant... Doesn't count as persecution unless it was done enough.

I've stated my position clearly several times. Stop parroting the same drivel ignoring this distinction.


You've removed it from the discourse because you don't want to consider it as motive for attacking caravans. "Whitewash" might be more accurate than "justify", but there is some overlap.

I haven't removed anything. I don't see it as a motivation in wholesale attacks against the trading routes of the Quraysh, enslavement and murder of its merchants. If Mohammed and those who endured persecution, to various levels from ridicule to being murdered, from their slave-owners is the issue (Mohammed not enduring this level of persecution I might add), then they should take it up with those who committed this persecution, not simply attack those who go in the general direction of Mecca. Its a justification Mohammed used falsely to justify their theft, enslavement, and murder rampage.


See... You call it a natural reaction. What am I supposed to infer from that?

Infer from it that during the 7th century, that this might be a realistic reaction by those in charge in Mecca. Simple. Not that I would personally assume that this approach by the Quraysh is proper and justifiable.


Really, where was this preaching and evangelising done? How successful was it? How much of a risk to the tourist trade -- err, sorry, pilgrim trade -- at Mecca did it become?

Throwing a few cogs in the wheels I see. The point I've made is that this preaching of other religions existed. I don't see any similar reaction, errm, persecution by the Quraysh for said preaching.


I got this far:

He uses the word "pester" to describe the torture and killing of slaves and the rest of the persecution which led to Muslims fleeing to Ethiopia in 615.

Somehow I don't think "pester" is the proper word.

Then re-read the quote. Its in respect to Mohammed and the ridicule and 'pesting' he endured whilsts in Mecca and not in respect to his followers or anybody else for that matter. It’s definitely not in respect to those slaves that were killed or tortured by their slave-owners.


More references to what happened after the persecution started.

There's the bit, yet again, that you missing that the Quraysh didn't react until the Nakhla Raid in force. Prior to this it was economic sanctions. You're arguing in circles here.


I've not claimed the raids were a matter of survival. I've claimed they were trying to get justice for stolen goods and persecution.

The link you gave does claim the first bit. So you are claiming that it’s justifiable to attack caravans headed to Mecca regardless if they were involved in theft or the cases of persecution. The Nakhla Raid was the first successful one. There doesn't include the raids where Mohammed and/or his followers were not successful. Are you claiming that all these raids were a form of justice?



You've still not said how you would have reacted to the persecution. You see a slave being tortured because he is a Muslim. What do you do? Do you turn a blind eye saying, "Oh, better to leave things alone. If I step in, it might escalate into a big war."

Personally, I would step in. You do have to take into consideration that much of the violence was between slave-owner and slave. Slaves don't have any real rights or freedoms. Mohammed abided by the same regulations of this time in regards to the treatment of slaves. So not much difference there.

The violence on slaves in this region during the 7th century, to my knowledge, hasn't resulted in a war. It’s the raids that resulted in the escalation.


Referring to sanctions, theft and the killing of slaves as "ridicule" isn't in any way minimising anything of any importance. It certainly isn't an attempt to whitewash or justify anything.

You're running with your false premise as stated above.


I don't get that analogy.

It’s pretty straightforward. One can't blame the government for the actions of the pimp.


So the Quraysh didn't react to the reaction until after the reaction to the reaction that... Wait, I'm confused. What preceeded the persecution of Muslims? Preaching. Successful preaching. Nobody would have bothered if the preaching wasn't successful. And some insults.

Simple. Mohammed preached, claimed that the Ka'aba should belong to his God Allah and that should only be restricted to those who worship allah. This continued to the point where the Quraysh imposed economic sanction against Mohammed. Mohammed left to Mecca, started raids to the point of his successful raid in question (Nakhla raid), then Quraysh reacted in force against further raids.

There wasn't successful preaching. Muslims only composed a small portion before leaving Mecca. Cite otherwise.

Still begs the question, why did the Quraysh react with sanctions against Mohammed when preaching occurred from other religions in Mecca.


I support self-defence, even through violence.

So wholesale violence against any of those associated or living within Mecca. Thanks for the clarification.


So, having admited you are unable to cite any violence from before the persecution, you must resort to: "I wonder what they did to deserve it? It must have been something to get such a stern reaction."

No. Its simply that I'm not following your attempt to steer this debate with the false premise that there was violence in order to justify the economic sanctions against Mohammed.

The point stands that you cannot cite counter examples where non-Islamic preaching in Mecca resulted in sanctions against those preaching.


Cite this, please. Remember, the question is: "When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?"

Not: "When did Mohammed first say that the Ka'aba was special to Islam?"

When Mohmmaed had the revelation of al-Baqara (The cow) of the Quran, namely that of the verses 2:125-129. These state that the Ka’aba was built (and re-built) for the devotion to one God and should be restricted as such.
Took me a while to find an online version, but the following excerpts on page 10 (under III) onwards state this (along with the Quranic verses) in addition to the Quraysh’s concerns.
Islam, a way of Life ( http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&sig=xk4azqWkPVw4WTEHjy3pIzrM-54&hl=iw&ei=7fCLS_HBI8ai_QaR4vHpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=&f=false)


So no attempt to just throw Qutb in there and hope to link Hamas with al-Qaeda. I'm so relieved.
So finally you admit that Hamas was influenced by Qutb, even partly so. Which is all I sought out to prove. Moving on.

[FireGarden]

There's no evidence that they were identified before-hand. The raiding party led by Abdallah Bin Jahsh is a known leader and is well-known for his violence.

Was he indeed? I've not heard of him in any other story. And the wiki link says (and you agree) that this raid we are talking about was the first succesful Muslim raid and the man who died was the first to be killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_raid

The Islamic name of this first successful raid is the ‘Nakhla Raid.’ It was also the first raid on which the Muslims seized their first captive, and the first life they took.

Perhaps you could cite the "well-known" violence.

I simply don't believe that these merchants didn't recognize this fellow along with any other members of his raiding party simply because they had shaven heads and were mistaken for pilgrims. Hence my position that the merchants didn't recognize them or that the raiding party didn't identify the merchants as being Quraysh or the more extreme accusation from the link you gave, that the any or all of the merchants were identified as being guilty of theft of Mohammed and his followers' goods.

So all you have is an argument from incredulity, rather than an argument from data.

Where was the force? You have not been able to cite any. And insults justify persecution? I don't agree.
Claiming ownership of the Ka'aba and threatening exclusive access and the resulting economic sanctions on Mohammed was the result.

You consider any of that to be force?

Throwing a few cogs in the wheels I see. The point I've made is that this preaching of other religions existed. I don't see any similar reaction, errm, persecution by the Quraysh for said preaching.

You've already admitted that the persecution wasn't in response to violence. So all you have is a response to words. It's hardly a defence to say: "But they didn't persecute others who said words!" Even if the Muslims were the first people ever to be persecuted by the leaders of Mecca (and we don't know that for sure) it doesn't excuse the persecution.

But you want to pretend it does, by asking questions like "what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh?" Sounds to me like an attempt to blame the victim.

Then re-read the quote. Its in respect to Mohammed and the ridicule and 'pesting' he endured whilsts in Mecca and not in respect to his followers or anybody else for that matter. It’s definitely not in respect to those slaves that were killed or tortured by their slave-owners.

So, if some of your friends are killed, that is just being pestered? I don't think you really believe that.

So you are claiming that it’s justifiable to attack caravans headed to Mecca regardless if they were involved in theft or the cases of persecution.

My link claims the merchants were identified as persecuters. I still disagree that the Muslims attacked at random.

The Nakhla Raid was the first successful one. There doesn't include the raids where Mohammed and/or his followers were not successful. Are you claiming that all these raids were a form of justice?

I have no reason to think otherwise.

Slaves don't have any real rights or freedoms. Mohammed abided by the same regulations of this time in regards to the treatment of slaves. So not much difference there.

You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery

There wasn't successful preaching. Muslims only composed a small portion before leaving Mecca. Cite otherwise.

Succesful enough for Mohammed to be asked to mediate in Medina.

So wholesale violence against any of those associated or living within Mecca. Thanks for the clarification.

You're determined in this foolishness. I've not justified violence against all those in Mecca. And you know it.

No. Its simply that I'm not following your attempt to steer this debate with the false premise that there was violence in order to justify the economic sanctions against Mohammed.

I'm not steering it that way. I'm pointing out that there was no violence -- or any other crime -- to justify economic sanctions.

The point stands that you cannot cite counter examples where non-Islamic preaching in Mecca resulted in sanctions against those preaching.

Why would I need to?

When Mohmmaed had the revelation of al-Baqara (The cow) of the Quran, namely that of the verses 2:125-129. These state that the Ka’aba was built (and re-built) for the devotion to one God and should be restricted as such.

And it was revealed when?

Took me a while to find an online version, but the following excerpts on page 10 (under III) onwards state this (along with the Quranic verses) in addition to the Quraysh’s concerns.
Islam, a way of Life ( http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&sig=xk4azqWkPVw4WTEHjy3pIzrM-54&hl=iw&ei=7fCLS_HBI8ai_QaR4vHpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Do you realise that, on the previous page (http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA22&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&output=html) -- and in relation to the "Truth hath come" quote which is highlighted -- your source makes reference to the year 630?

So, unless you want to claim the the Quraysh were psychic, you'll have to go on looking for something which happened before the persecution.

So finally you admit that Hamas was influenced by Qutb, even partly so. Which is all I sought out to prove. Moving on.

I'm sure that was your only intent.

[bigjelmapro]

Was he indeed? I've not heard of him in any other story. And the wiki link says (and you agree) that this raid we are talking about was the first succesful Muslim raid and the man who died was the first to be killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_raid

Perhaps you could cite the "well-known" violence.

Another bout in citing. So there weren't any failed raids prior to this? Nope, no violence occurred there. I'm assuming that your concept of a razzia excludes any form of violence, unless someone happens to get killed.


So all you have is an argument from incredulity, rather than an argument from data.

Sounds a bit more concrete than you quoting evangelist-equivalent sites as objective historical accounts. And this is considered ‘data’ in your eyes.


You've already admitted that the persecution wasn't in response to violence. So all you have is a response to words. It's hardly a defence to say: "But they didn't persecute others who said words!" Even if the Muslims were the first people ever to be persecuted by the leaders of Mecca (and we don't know that for sure) it doesn't excuse the persecution.

At this point I’m still waiting for your admission that the isolated cases of violence (namely slave owner against slave) isn’t included in this persecution accusation against the Quraysh (wholesale) and therefore this wholesale attack against the Quraysh is not justifiable as a form of justice. Its simply thievery and murder by all counts.


But you want to pretend it does, by asking questions like "what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh?" Sounds to me like an attempt to blame the victim.

Sounds more to me like you don’t have any counter examples. Additionally, that you are blaming the Quraysh for killing.


So, if some of your friends are killed, that is just being pestered? I don't think you really believe that.

You’re stubborn. Replied already to this, you’re still running with yet another false premise.


My link claims the merchants were identified as persecuters. I still disagree that the Muslims attacked at random.

I don’t agree with this site you provided as I haven’t read any other pro-Islam sites which directly state that this is the story, neither does Bukhari, Pickthall, Muslim or any of the hadiths. They weren’t identified as persecutors and not as those who stole/appropriated Mohammed’s possessions in Mecca in any other site that I’ve found.

And not random, never claimed this. The raiding party was instructed to lie in wait for potential targets along a stretch of the trading route, not for a specific target.
Now at this point, you can continue stating the same thing for the nth time or provide some credible evidence.


You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery

Did I say Islam? Nope. Avoiding yet another deflection.


Successful enough for Mohammed to be asked to mediate in Medina.

‘Asked to mediate’. I like that one. Perhaps you can provide another shining example/link of Mohammed’s passiveness in Medina from those wonderful sites of yours. Perhaps another whitewashing link where Mohammed passively took over Medina and all those who opposed him? The Jewish tribes?

Actually, on second thought, since I'm not that newbish to this subject, save it. Would really enjoy not giving you another tangent to go on.


You're determined in this foolishness. I've not justified violence against all those in Mecca. And you know it.

No, just against the Quraysh and those associated with them. But keep pedaling.


I'm not steering it that way. I'm pointing out that there was no violence -- or any other crime -- to justify economic sanctions.

At this point you would like to pay attention to the premise of yours. That one needs violence as a precursor to economic sanctions, or what the book linked, boycott, in order to justify said sanctions, which is simply not true.

However, it doesn’t keep you from falsely attributing the persecution, as in beyond ridicule and verbal attacks, to the Quraysh and running with the assumption that attacks along the trading routes to Mecca are a form of justice.


Why would I need to?

It’s called a counter example. Ever heard of it? Or do you think I wouldn’t notice that I’m doing all the leg-work whilst you’re sitting there confirming or denying (mostly) of what I say. Not playing this game anymore. Thanks.


And it was revealed when?

Obsession with time. You won’t get a timestamp and a signed calendar if that’s what you’re asking, simply that it happened before other events, ie the economic sanctions.


Do you realise that, on the previous page (http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA22&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&output=html) -- and in relation to the "Truth hath come" quote which is highlighted -- your source makes reference to the year 630?

So, unless you want to claim the the Quraysh were psychic, you'll have to go on looking for something which happened before the persecution.

And you do realize that a couple paragraphs down from where I quoted it mentions the death of Mohammed’s uncle, first convert (his wife as well), Quranic verses revealed prior to his fleeing Mecca the first time, and the migration of the first families of Mohammed’s followers in 615?
Please show me where Mohammed has access to Michael J. Fox’s Delorian. This isn’t a sequential account.

Moving on from here as well since obviously you're running of fumes here.

[FireGarden]

Another bout in citing. So there weren't any failed raids prior to this? Nope, no violence occurred there. I'm assuming that your concept of a razzia excludes any form of violence, unless someone happens to get killed.

Another bout of goal-post moving. Your claim was that Abdallah Bin Jahsh was so well known that: "I simply don't believe that these merchants didn't recognize this fellow along with any other members of his raiding party simply because they had shaven heads and were mistaken for pilgrims."

Sounds a bit more concrete than you quoting evangelist-equivalent sites as objective historical accounts. And this is considered ‘data’ in your eyes.

Your argument from incredulity sounds concrete to you?

At this point I’m still waiting for your admission that the isolated cases of violence (namely slave owner against slave) isn’t included in this persecution accusation against the Quraysh (wholesale) and therefore this wholesale attack against the Quraysh is not justifiable as a form of justice. Its simply thievery and murder by all counts.

I've already said that attacks against random Quraysh aren't justified. Mohammed himself was Quraysh. You haven't convinced me that the attacks were random.

Sounds more to me like you don’t have any counter examples. Additionally, that you are blaming the Quraysh for killing.

Sounds to me that you have no cause for the persecution other than a response to preaching. And, no, I don't blame all the Quraysh.

You’re stubborn. Replied already to this, you’re still running with yet another false premise.

Actually... I was pointing out the facile stupidity of your reply, which was along the lines of: "It's alright to say that Mohammed was merely pestered by the leaders in Mecca because he himself wasn't killed -- only a few slaves who had converted."

That's merely being pestered? Did you have a different defence of the use of "pestered"?

And not random, never claimed this. The raiding party was instructed to lie in wait for potential targets along a stretch of the trading route, not for a specific target.
Now at this point, you can continue stating the same thing for the nth time or provide some credible evidence.

You claim "random" in the sense that any Quraysh would do. I disagree.

And the cite I gave is credible enough for the claim involved. As well the biography of Mohammed I gave, wiki states that the parties had seen each other and the Muslims were thought to be pilgrims on their way to Mecca.

Your claim is much more extraordinary and needs more than your incredulity regarding the recognisability of allegedly famous raiders.

‘Asked to mediate’. I like that one. Perhaps you can provide another shining example/link of Mohammed’s passiveness in Medina from those wonderful sites of yours. Perhaps another whitewashing link where Mohammed passively took over Medina and all those who opposed him? The Jewish tribes?

Were did I claim he passively took over Medina? You asked me for evidence he was successful, and I gave you some: He was asked to mediate in Medina.

No, just against the Quraysh and those associated with them.

Not even that.

It’s called a counter example. Ever heard of it? Or do you think I wouldn’t notice that I’m doing all the leg-work whilst you’re sitting there confirming or denying (mostly) of what I say. Not playing this game anymore. Thanks.

By why would I need a counter-example? As I said: even if this is the first time that the Quraysh persecuted a group of people, you still have to justify the persecution. And you can't. You've even claimed that you weren't trying to, which is the weird thing about this all too long conversation.

Obsession with time. You won’t get a timestamp and a signed calendar if that’s what you’re asking, simply that it happened before other events, ie the economic sanctions.

So all I'll get is a claim with no evidence to back it up. The highlighted text in your link is a quote of when Mohammed destroyed the idols -- and the date for that is given by your own source.

As for sura 2:125-129.

Sura 2 was mostly revealed in Medina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara
(Apart from the last three of the 286 verses, which don't mention the Kaaba).

And you do realize that a couple paragraphs down from where I quoted it mentions the death of Mohammed’s uncle, first convert (his wife as well), Quranic verses revealed prior to his fleeing Mecca the first time, and the migration of the first families of Mohammed’s followers in 615?

And which of those do you think are cause for persecution?

You didn't actually quote anything. There is a portion of text which was highlighted (due, I assume, to the google query that was made). I've addressed that. There is no way the highlighted text refers to before Mohammed left Mecca. Your own source is clear on that.

[bigjelmapro]

Another bout of goal-post moving. Your claim was that Abdallah Bin Jahsh was so well known that: "I simply don't believe that these merchants didn't recognize this fellow along with any other members of his raiding party simply because they had shaven heads and were mistaken for pilgrims."

Actually it was in reference to the statement of your referring to violence during these razzias, which you assumed were devoid of violence based on the lack of success of plundering and lack of death. So no goal-post moving involved, unless it was your intention to do so.
Bin Jahsh was the leader of the raiding party and known as a relative of Mohammed. He attained this position of leader from previous raids. Whether he himself was known by the merchants is moot, what is known by these merchants is that there were a number of razzias against Quraysh caravans over the last few months, albeit mostly unsuccessful. The intent of thievery was there, the intent to murder was there (ie from previous raids when Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256: Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama was revealed, justifying murder of innocents, including women and children), and previous unsuccessful raids by these Muslims made these Quraysh trade caravans weary of being attacked.
For clarification, the Quraysh did react to the unsuccessful, unprovoked raids of Mohammed during the same month of the Nakhla raid. So I’m correcting myself that the first reaction of the Quraysh was following the Nakhla raid. Overall, this doesn’t change much.
Raid on Muhammad’s Milch Camels at Badr ( http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Root_of_Terrorism:_Terror_Four_to_Eight)

Raid on Muhammad’s Milch Camels at Badr (Badr I) by Kurz ibn Jabir al-Fihri —December, 623CE

After those six unprovoked and hostile attacks on the Quraysh caravans, the Quraysh had had enough. It was now time for them to retaliate and send a strong message to Muhammad that his highway robbery cannot go unpunished forever. With this end in view, Kurz ibn Jabir al-Fihri, allay of the Quarysh raided the vicinity of Medina where Muhammad’s milch camels were pasturing. This was conducted ten days after Muhammad returned to Medina from his unsuccessful plundering attempt at the Quraysh caravan at al-Usharayh. Having heard of this attack, Muhammad swiftly went out looking for Kurz until he reached the Safwa valley, close to Badr. This was the first raid at Badr or Badr I. Kurz escaped the capture; Muhammad returned to Medina and stayed there for the next three months. It is said that later, Muhammad caught Kurz and he (Kurz) converted to Islam.

The shaven head of Ukkash b Mihsan, as in 1 of the raiders not all, and the timing of Rejab probably made this specific caravan less weary of attack.
All in all, this ties in with your allegation with that questionable link you gave, that the raiding party recognized one or more of the caravan members. You haven’t made the case where this would be a reasonable assumption.

Your argument from incredulity sounds concrete to you?

Broken record? Your links where the guilt of theft from Mohammed is retroactively applied to a number of the merchants (if more than 1) of this caravan is baseless. Your link simply states that so and so was a perpetrator, nothing more. No surrahs, no hadiths, no supporting evidence.

I've already said that attacks against random Quraysh aren't justified. Mohammed himself was Quraysh. You haven't convinced me that the attacks were random.

Yet again, not stating random. What I've stated is in opposition to your statement that this is a form of justice in response to the appropriation of goods from Mohammed and his followers when they left Mecca along with the position of whom no guilty party was mentioned. Simply some baseless finger pointing in the link given. You haven’t provided any evidence that this attacks on the caravans were a form of justice and were nothing more than simple thievery.
But I like the sly attempt at a fallacy here.


Sounds to me that you have no cause for the persecution other than a response to preaching. And, no, I don't blame all the Quraysh.

I’ve given the reasons why the Quraysh responded against Mohammed with economic sanctions/boycott, whether you want to admit that these reasons exist or not. And not playing this absolutist game either now. It’s such a weak angle to play.


Actually... I was pointing out the facile stupidity of your reply, which was along the lines of: "It's alright to say that Mohammed was merely pestered by the leaders in Mecca because he himself wasn't killed -- only a few slaves who had converted."

That's merely being pestered? Did you have a different defence of the use of "pestered"?

No, no you weren’t. This is yet another lame attempt to pull the wool over my eyes. The original allegation you made:

I got this far:
Originally Posted by bigjel's source
To try to survive, Muhammad set out to attack the rich caravans of Quraysh. After all, they were the ones who pestered him many years in the past, day in and day out. His first few attempts were flat out failures.
He uses the word "pester" to describe the torture and killing of slaves and the rest of the persecution which led to Muslims fleeing to Ethiopia in 615.

Somehow I don't think "pester" is the proper word.
I’ve already responded to this, yet now you’re somehow trying to peddle something different. If you wish to continue with this questionable debating practice of yours, by all means, continue, just don’t expect a response.


You claim "random" in the sense that any Quraysh would do. I disagree.

Actually, I claim that any caravan would do travelling along this trading route. Because this was after all a razzia, like the many before and many after, whose only intent was to plunder.

Were did I claim he passively took over Medina? You asked me for evidence he was successful, and I gave you some: He was asked to mediate in Medina.

You attribute his success as a self-proclaimed prophet to him being asked to mediate between two squabbling tribes?


By why would I need a counter-example? As I said: even if this is the first time that the Quraysh persecuted a group of people, you still have to justify the persecution. And you can't. You've even claimed that you weren't trying to, which is the weird thing about this all too long conversation.

Asked for a counter-example where a similar action was taken against another religious group prior to Mohammed to support your allegation that the Quraysh imposed sanctions/boycotts (in your case persecution) simply for preaching. You haven't given one, albeit, there was preaching from other religious groups.


So all I'll get is a claim with no evidence to back it up. The highlighted text in your link is a quote of when Mohammed destroyed the idols -- and the date for that is given by your own source.

As for sura 2:125-129.
(Apart from the last three of the 286 verses, which don't mention the Kaaba).

So what are we arguing here? Since one of the longest chapters in the Quran was mostly revealed when Mohammed was in Medina means that none was revealed in Mecca? The destroying of the idols was a recitation.


And which of those do you think are cause for persecution?

It’s given. Read what the concerns of the Quraysh were and their reasoning for imposing a boycott/sanctions on Mohammed.

You didn't actually quote anything. There is a portion of text which was highlighted (due, I assume, to the google query that was made). I've addressed that. There is no way the highlighted text refers to before Mohammed left Mecca. Your own source is clear on that.
Not going to write out that entire bit I provided. You haven’t addressed anything. You stated that a previous section referenced 630 hence the following bit I referenced couldn’t possibly refer to anything before 630. There’s a sequence there and details and reasons given to Mohammed’s departure.

[FireGarden]

Actually it was in reference to the statement of your referring to violence during these razzias, which you assumed were devoid of violence based on the lack of success of plundering and lack of death. So no goal-post moving involved, unless it was your intention to do so.
Bin Jahsh was the leader of the raiding party and known as a relative of Mohammed. He attained this position of leader from previous raids. Whether he himself was known by the merchants is moot, what is known by these merchants is that there were a number of razzias against Quraysh caravans over the last few months, albeit mostly unsuccessful.

Your claim again: "I simply don't believe that these merchants didn't recognize this fellow along with any other members of his raiding party simply because they had shaven heads and were mistaken for pilgrims."

And now you say whether he was known by the merchants is moot. Do you see the inconsistency?

For clarification, the Quraysh did react to the unsuccessful, unprovoked raids of Mohammed during the same month of the Nakhla raid. So I’m correcting myself that the first reaction of the Quraysh was following the Nakhla raid. Overall, this doesn’t change much.
Raid on Muhammad’s Milch Camels at Badr ( http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Root_of_Terrorism:_Terror_Four_to_Eight)

You call them unprovoked, again. So you know for a fact that the Muslims had forgiven all the persecution which had gone before? You don't know this? Then how do you call the raids "unprovoked"? Oh, yes... You have divined that the raids were conducted at random, without bothering to determine the identities of those being raided. You method of divination is not convincing, though.


I don't know the point of your link. Nor do I think much of the website. Have you read their FAQs (http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_pro-Islamic_opinions_be_found_on_WikiIslam.3F)?

The shaven head of Ukkash b Mihsan, as in 1 of the raiders not all, and the timing of Rejab probably made this specific caravan less weary of attack.
All in all, this ties in with your allegation with that questionable link you gave, that the raiding party recognized one or more of the caravan members. You haven’t made the case where this would be a reasonable assumption.

What's unreasonable about it? The Muslims were seen by the merchants and taken for pilgrims. Why do you think that the merchants were not seen by the Muslims? Or do you think it unlikely that they would recognise a man who persecuted them?

Broken record? Your links where the guilt of theft from Mohammed is retroactively applied to a number of the merchants (if more than 1) of this caravan is baseless. Your link simply states that so and so was a perpetrator, nothing more. No surrahs, no hadiths, no supporting evidence.

It's not theft from Mohammed -- it's theft from, and persecution of, Muslims. The Quran and hadith don't contain every detail.

The link I gave earlier is a quote from a book, whose contents are listed here: http://mercytomankind.org/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/TheLifeOfMohamed.html

Unfortunately, they don't name the author and the book link doesn't seem to lead anywhere. Wiki lists some who wrote biographies of Mohammed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_biography#Authors_of_Sirah

On the early biographies wiki says:

The sirat literature include a variety of materials such as political treaties, military enlistments, assignments of officials, etc. which were recorded by successive generations of Muslims. In principle, the biographies of Muhammad would have been assembled from reports of what he did, just as what he said was recorded in the form of hadith. However, the sirat literature is technically different from hadith literature as it is in general not as concerned with validation through the chain of transmitters (isnad), although in the earliest sirat many of the narratives are accompanied by isnads. This is probably due to a number of reasons. First, the story of Muhammad's life was probably quite well-known and frequently re-told amongst Muslims, as well as to new converts, from the early days of Islam.

Yet again, not stating random. What I've stated is in opposition to your statement that this is a form of justice in response to the appropriation of goods from Mohammed and his followers when they left Mecca along with the position of whom no guilty party was mentioned. Simply some baseless finger pointing in the link given. You haven’t provided any evidence that this attacks on the caravans were a form of justice and were nothing more than simple thievery.
But I like the sly attempt at a fallacy here.

Yes, you are stating random -- in the sense that any Quraysh would do and that the identity of those attacked didn't matter to the Muslims.

I have given more evidence than you. You only have your incredulity regarding whether the merchants would have failed to recognised the raiding party as a raiding party.

I’ve given the reasons why the Quraysh responded against Mohammed with economic sanctions/boycott, whether you want to admit that these reasons exist or not. And not playing this absolutist game either now. It’s such a weak angle to play.

The only reason for persecution you give (from before the persecution) is Mohammed's preaching. You don't even accept that this preaching was successful enough to warrant action -- at least you called me out on it earlier.

No, no you weren’t. This is yet another lame attempt to pull the wool over my eyes. The original allegation you made:

I’ve already responded to this, yet now you’re somehow trying to peddle something different. If you wish to continue with this questionable debating practice of yours, by all means, continue, just don’t expect a response.

Yes, you responded to it by saying that "pestered" is good enough word for what happened:

Then re-read the quote. Its in respect to Mohammed and the ridicule and 'pesting' he endured whilsts in Mecca and not in respect to his followers or anybody else for that matter. It’s definitely not in respect to those slaves that were killed or tortured by their slave-owners.

So Muslims were killed. But you think it is acceptable for your source to refer to what happened as "Mohammed being pestered". And why? Because you have the same agenda as your source: minimise the persecution, and most definitely don't consider it as any grounds for retaliation. You want to pretend that Mohammed was upset by ridicule -- not by the killing of Muslims.

And, no, I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I'm not even talking to you, but at you -- just in case anybody else is reading.

Actually, I claim that any caravan would do travelling along this trading route. Because this was after all a razzia, like the many before and many after, whose only intent was to plunder.

That's an even more bizarre claim. "Any caravan would do" but... "It's not random. Really it isn't".

You attribute his success as a self-proclaimed prophet to him being asked to mediate between two squabbling tribes?

Do you attribute his being asked to mediate to his being a politically weak merchant -- running his wife's business? Strange that.

Asked for a counter-example where a similar action was taken against another religious group prior to Mohammed to support your allegation that the Quraysh imposed sanctions/boycotts (in your case persecution) simply for preaching. You haven't given one, albeit, there was preaching from other religious groups.

It is YOU, not me, who has failed to come up with any cause for the persecution other than preaching. I go further by saying that the preaching was successful. You still seem to disagree with that.

Given your failure -- but diehard intention to blame the victims -- you are left with claiming "well it must have been something the Muslims did. They had to deserve it." But until you can name the something, you have nothing but your claim.

So what are we arguing here? Since one of the longest chapters in the Quran was mostly revealed when Mohammed was in Medina means that none was revealed in Mecca? The destroying of the idols was a recitation.

The last three verses of that chapter were revealed in Mecca. These are not the verses you cited.


It’s given. Read what the concerns of the Quraysh were and their reasoning for imposing a boycott/sanctions on Mohammed.

I'm not reading the entire book. Quote it.

Not going to write out that entire bit I provided. You haven’t addressed anything. You stated that a previous section referenced 630 hence the following bit I referenced couldn’t possibly refer to anything before 630. There’s a sequence there and details and reasons given to Mohammed’s departure.

I've read the paragraph again. The highlighted text is from after Mohammed had defeated the leaders of Mecca. You don't seem to have understood your own source.

Keep telling me I'm wrong, I don't mind. Like I said above, I'm only talking at you. Anybody who is reading this knows that I have not misrepresented your source. I'm referring to one single paragraph spanning pages 21 and 22. You either have very limited reading comprehension, a surplus of wishful thinking, or you think nobody who reads it will call you out on it.

Here's page 21 again (http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA22&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&output=html).

[bigjelmapro]

Your claim again: "I simply don't believe that these merchants didn't recognize this fellow along with any other members of his raiding party simply because they had shaven heads and were mistaken for pilgrims."
And now you say whether he was known by the merchants is moot. Do you see the inconsistency?

Stating what I believe from the lack of information regarding the Nakhla raid and stating that its moot, as in debateable, whether one recognizes the other (raiding party and caravan members), is not inconsistent. I accept that there's a lack of evidence that these people were indeed identified prior to the raid, but the link you provided states that the leader of the caravan and/or other members as the de-facto 'persecutor(s)' and thieves of Muslims and Mohammed Mecca when they first fled. That is the issue I have with the link, I’ve made this readily apparent.
Understand the distinction. And cease with pushing that link of yours as if it’s some historical account. It isn't. It isn't supported by hadith/surrahs/etc.

You call them unprovoked, again. So you know for a fact that the Muslims had forgiven all the persecution which had gone before? You don't know this? Then how do you call the raids "unprovoked"? Oh, yes... You have divined that the raids were conducted at random, without bothering to determine the identities of those being raided. You method of divination is not convincing, though.

And here we are again whitewashing the actions of razzias as some form of justice. The simple fact of these razzias was to attain booty and hence attract more followers to Mohammed’s new found faith. This ties in with the above.

I don't know the point of your link. Nor do I think much of the website. Have you read their FAQs (http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_pro-Islamic_opinions_be_found_on_WikiIslam.3F)?

I've used it as a source for the details behind the actual razzias themselves, from dates and who was involved. I could care less about the interpretation after the sources are given. But then again, what's the problem with this? Don't you see the hypocrisy in your position defending those sites you've given?
Even Wikipedia suffers from a level of censorship where questioning Mohammed’s motives and questionable practices, or even portraying him in a modicum of bad light which is equivalent to heresy. Groups of writers drive the media content of Wikipedia. And no need to shrug this off by simply asserting that it’s some sort of CT.
These sources are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Additionally, the sites which are pro-Islam tend to gloss over some of the initial razzias (only listing them as unsuccessful) which put Mohammed’s prophetic position into jeopardy.

It's not theft from Mohammed -- it's theft from, and persecution of, Muslims. The Quran and hadith don't contain every detail.
Yes, you are stating random -- in the sense that any Quraysh would do and that the identity of those attacked didn't matter to the Muslims.
I have given more evidence than you. You only have your incredulity regarding whether the merchants would have failed to recognised the raiding party as a raiding party.

The previous (failed) razzias are evidence that these raids’ intentions were to loot, plunder, and sell captives back to the families/tribes they were abducted from for financial gain. The sliver of evidence, which really isn’t evidence at all just finger-pointing, does nothing to negate my points.
You haven’t provided evidence outside of simply pointing the finger at one of the merchants. So whitewashing the actions of Mohammed and his band of bandits and attempting to portray it as a form of justice, which is still wholesale, against the Quraysh.

Yes, you responded to it by saying that "pestered" is good enough word for what happened:
So Muslims were killed. But you think it is acceptable for your source to refer to what happened as "Mohammed being pestered". And why? Because you have the same agenda as your source: minimise the persecution, and most definitely don't consider it as any grounds for retaliation. You want to pretend that Mohammed was upset by ridicule -- not by the killing of Muslims.

No, yet again. I was correcting your allegation from the link in question that it asserted that the ridicule Mohammed himself received (stated as ‘pestering’) is not the same stating those who were tortured/murdered by their slave owners is ‘pestering’ and the latter of which the author was NOT referring to when he stated ‘pestering’.
You are here, once again, accusing the Quraysh with wide brush strokes as being complacent in the cases of where slave owners tortured and/or murdered their slaves for their religious beliefs, and should thus be justifiable targets for plunder (albeit, the first raids show that the target were rich caravans and not those who were deemed guilty of murder and torture).
My only interest in this matter is to portray Mohammed in a realistic light as to what his real intentions were rather than to give the impression that his intentions and motivations were stemmed in simply and solely in seeking justice. My intentions are not to portray the Quraysh as being victims. There is no lack of evidence to support the idea that Mohammed’s prime motivation was for political hegemony in the region and to spread further. Neither is there lack of evidence that he killed and ordered killings for people who opposed his religious doctrine. These aren’t characteristics of pious men and women.

That's an even more bizarre claim. "Any caravan would do" but... "It's not random. Really it isn't".

Not really bizarre at all. This was the Quraysh main trading routes (their monopoly, as previously stated) that were attacked, so not random at all. A counter-example of where attacking certain trading routes would be deemed random, would be the Somali pirate attacks against shipping lines off the coast of Somalia.

Do you attribute his being asked to mediate to his being a politically weak merchant -- running his wife's business? Strange that.

That’s a strange assertion. I have no doubt that Mohammed’s political success in Medina stemmed from him filling the demands of squabbling tribes and that of his razzias. I don’t really attribute his success in Medina to that of preaching his religious doctrine.

It is YOU, not me, who has failed to come up with any cause for the persecution other than preaching. I go further by saying that the preaching was successful. You still seem to disagree with that.

Read below, or above where I referenced the page in question. It wasn’t restricted to preaching.

Given your failure -- but diehard intention to blame the victims -- you are left with claiming "well it must have been something the Muslims did. They had to deserve it." But until you can name the something, you have nothing but your claim.

How many false claims have you got left in that magical hat of yours? Never claimed this, never will.
What I have said is that this was a natural reaction by the Quraysh who saw Mohammed as a threat to the stability they implemented.

I'm not reading the entire book. Quote it.

I did, go back and read the pages I referenced. The link shoots you down to x page, but I’ve clearly stated the part I was referring to.

I've read the paragraph again. The highlighted text is from after Mohammed had defeated the leaders of Mecca. You don't seem to have understood your own source….

No, you’re just reading the wrong part.

[FireGarden]

Stating what I believe from the lack of information regarding the Nakhla raid and stating that its moot, as in debateable, whether one recognizes the other (raiding party and caravan members), is not inconsistent. I accept that there's a lack of evidence that these people were indeed identified prior to the raid, but the link you provided states that the leader of the caravan and/or other members as the de-facto 'persecutor(s)' and thieves of Muslims and Mohammed Mecca when they first fled. That is the issue I have with the link, I’ve made this readily apparent.
Understand the distinction. And cease with pushing that link of yours as if it’s some historical account. It isn't. It isn't supported by hadith/surrahs/etc.

So, based (as you admit) on no evidence, you do not believe that the merchants failed to recognise the Muslims -- but you do believe that the Muslims didn't recognise the merchants.

As for the point about calling it moot...
It didn't seem that way when you first stated it. You seemed very sure of yourself. When you said you "simply don't believe....", you didn't mean to imply that the idea was preposterous -- you meant to imply that the idea was debateable. Aha.

And here we are again whitewashing the actions of razzias as some form of justice. The simple fact of these razzias was to attain booty and hence attract more followers to Mohammed’s new found faith. This ties in with the above.

That's what you've failed to prove.

I've used it as a source for the details behind the actual razzias themselves, from dates and who was involved. I could care less about the interpretation after the sources are given. But then again, what's the problem with this? Don't you see the hypocrisy in your position defending those sites you've given?
Even Wikipedia suffers from a level of censorship where questioning Mohammed’s motives and questionable practices, or even portraying him in a modicum of bad light which is equivalent to heresy. Groups of writers drive the media content of Wikipedia. And no need to shrug this off by simply asserting that it’s some sort of CT.

You picked a source which admits to being biased. Wikipedia includes a wide variety of opinions, many of which get debated on the talk pages and referenced in the articles. Wiki doesn't always get it right, but at least I can believe there is an intention to get it right.

The previous (failed) razzias are evidence that these raids’ intentions were to loot, plunder, and sell captives back to the families/tribes they were abducted from for financial gain.

How is that? You still haven't proved that the caravans were attacked without the merchants identities being known.

The sliver of evidence, which really isn’t evidence at all just finger-pointing, does nothing to negate my points.
You haven’t provided evidence outside of simply pointing the finger at one of the merchants. So whitewashing the actions of Mohammed and his band of bandits and attempting to portray it as a form of justice, which is still wholesale, against the Quraysh.

You haven't provided any evidence other than claiming that the identity of the merchants was not known. This is something you base on lack of evidence.

No, yet again. I was correcting your allegation from the link in question that it asserted that the ridicule Mohammed himself received (stated as ‘pestering’) is not the same stating those who were tortured/murdered by their slave owners is ‘pestering’ and the latter of which the author was NOT referring to when he stated ‘pestering’.

Here is the quote again:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/good-and-evil-muslim-umma-lessons-nakhla-raid

To try to survive, Muhammad set out to attack the rich caravans of Quraysh. After all, they were the ones who pestered him many years in the past, day in and day out. His first few attempts were flat out failures.

See, as motive for targeting the Quraysh* they refer to "pestering". They don't give anything else. I suspect for the same reason as you. As I said: to minimise the persecution, and most definitely not to consider it as any grounds for retaliation. To pretend that Mohammed was upset by ridicule -- not by the killing of Muslims.

*Your source, like you, seems to claim that all the Quryash were targeted -- except, I assume, for Mohammad.

You are here, once again, accusing the Quraysh with wide brush strokes as being complacent in the cases of where slave owners tortured and/or murdered their slaves for their religious beliefs, and should thus be justifiable targets for plunder (albeit, the first raids show that the target were rich caravans and not those who were deemed guilty of murder and torture).

No I'm not using a wide brush. Because I'm not claiming that the caravans were attacked merely for being Quraysh. That is your claim. Please try harder to tell the difference between my position and yours.

My only interest in this matter is to portray Mohammed in a realistic light as to what his real intentions were rather than to give the impression that his intentions and motivations were stemmed in simply and solely in seeking justice.

By claiming things you cannot prove.

Not really bizarre at all. This was the Quraysh main trading routes (their monopoly, as previously stated) that were attacked, so not random at all. A counter-example of where attacking certain trading routes would be deemed random, would be the Somali pirate attacks against shipping lines off the coast of Somalia.

This is still random. You are saying that any caravan along a very definite and non-random route (as if the Quraysh were limited in the routes they could take). This gives a set of caravans any of which could be selected with no further criterea -- according to you. That is random.

The Quraysh were a big tribe in Mecca -- your above quote makes it sound like they had a monopoly on trade routes.

That’s a strange assertion. I have no doubt that Mohammed’s political success in Medina stemmed from him filling the demands of squabbling tribes and that of his razzias. I don’t really attribute his success in Medina to that of preaching his religious doctrine.

You're confused. The question is: why was he asked to mediate in Medina? Outside of Islam, he was a nobody. So, if his preaching wasn't succesful, what qualified him to mediate?

Read below, or above where I referenced the page in question. It wasn’t restricted to preaching.

Link to the page, please. It's easy enough.

Took me a while to find an online version, but the following excerpts on page 10 (under III) onwards state this (along with the Quranic verses) in addition to the Quraysh’s concerns.
Islam, a way of Life ( http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&sig=xk4azqWkPVw4WTEHjy3pIzrM-54&hl=iw&ei=7fCLS_HBI8ai_QaR4vHpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

This is page 10 (http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA22&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&output=html). There is no section III on that page. And the excerpts are regarding Mohammed being a prophet. That is the discussion of the page, including the semitic origins of the word "Nabi".

On page 12 (http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA22&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&output=html) however, your source gives:

The Quraysh -- particularly its Umayyad clan -- custodians of the Kaabah and the Zamzam, controllers of the caravan trade, and the oligarchic masters of the city, had special reasons for resistance. The new preaching might jeopardize pilgramages to the Kaabah, next to trade their main source of income. Moreover, the once-poor orphan was introducing such dangerous economic doctrines as the rightful claim of beggars the destitute to a share in the wealth of the rich (70:24-5). Additionally, he advocated a dangerous doctrine, one that would substitute faith for blood as the social bond of community life. If "the believers are naught but brothers" (49:10) was acted upon, the entire family, clan, and tribal unity would be undermined and replaced by religious unity.Then there were dangerous political implications in Muhammad's teaching. Religious success would entail political success, and the new prophet was a potential new ruler. Shrewd merchants that they were, they found nothing in what he offered that they cared to buy.

The opposition at first did not take the upstart seriously. Silence was followed by verbal attack. [examples of insults, then a list of converts to Islam. They say most were poor and/or slaves]

At last the time came for the aristocracy of his tribe, the banu-U-mayyah, to engage in active persecution. This necessitated the migration (in 615) of 83 families of his followers to Christian Abyssinia....

So we have nothing but preaching from Mohammed before the persecution. Islam, if successful, would:

-- threaten pilgramage to Mecca
-- introduce social welfare by granting the poor rights (see quote below)
-- make people consider those from other tribes to be like their own brothers
-- If everyone adopted the new religion, they would prefer Mohammad as their ruler



Some of these get described as dangerous -- but it's clear that the danger is to the status of those who already rule.

There is nothing there that justifies persecution.

btw, the reference to 70:24-25, I looked it up.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/yaq/yaq070.htm

Here it is, from verse 19:

19. Truly man was created
Very impatient;—

20. Fretful when evil
Touches him;

21. And niggardly when
Good reaches him;—

22. Not so those devoted
To Prayer;—

23. Those who remain steadfast
To their prayer;

24. And those in whose wealth
Is a recognised right

25. For the (needy) who asks
And him who is prevented
(For some reason from asking);

So those who pray aren't fretful, impatient or niggardly (miserly). In their wealth there is a recognised right for the needy.

Have I still got the wrong page?

How many false claims have you got left in that magical hat of yours? Never claimed this, never will.
What I have said is that this was a natural reaction by the Quraysh who saw Mohammed as a threat to the stability they implemented.

Nope:

Persecution, as in your perception of it, economic sanctions, yes, is not far-fetched. Begs to question what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh. You sure it was just another introduction of a religion of the dozens already existing there?

You ask "what could have invoked such a stern reaction?" ie: what did the Muslims do to get treated so badly? And you ask because you do not have an answer. That is classic blaming the victim.

I did, go back and read the pages I referenced. The link shoots you down to x page, but I’ve clearly stated the part I was referring to.

No, you’re just reading the wrong part.

Strange... I read the page you linked to, which includes highlighted text which (I assume) you used as a search template. But, I'm reading the wrong page. If so, I don't see it as my fault.

Do you admit the highlighted quote is from 630?

[bigjelmapro]

So, based (as you admit) on no evidence, you do not believe that the merchants failed to recognise the Muslims -- but you do believe that the Muslims didn't recognise the merchants.

It was to establish grounds of doubt that the raiding party recognized one of the merchants as being the perpetrator(s) of thievery, as your link asserts, or rather claims without supporting evidence. You can keep bringing this up in nth ways, but the response will always be the same.
Tying this one off since nothing new will come of it and you have failed to negate my point.

As for the point about calling it moot...
It didn't seem that way when you first stated it. You seemed very sure of yourself. When you said you "simply don't believe....", you didn't mean to imply that the idea was preposterous -- you meant to imply that the idea was debateable. Aha.

So one can’t be sure of oneself or one’s position strongly when I state ‘believe’? Perhaps you could suggest this assertion to the millions of those with religious beliefs as well. And no, before you try to draw a connection with my position and that of the belief of supernatural beings, no, it’s not like that. I base my position on the logic of said events, ie Nakhla raid. You accuse me of being incredulous, but somehow you see your position as being a stronger one based on a link from a pro-Islamic site that simple accuses one or more of the caravan members to be a perpetrator without a shred of corroborating evidence.
Tying this one off too.

That's what you've failed to prove.

What? The concept/motivations of a razzia? That’s not even debatable. Razzias are for plunder, pure and simple. Perhaps you could point to some actual evidence to the contrary, that these razzias of Mohammed’s henchmen are indeed a form of justice against the Quraysh. You haven’t, you simply accuse me of failing.

You picked a source which admits to being biased. Wikipedia includes a wide variety of opinions, many of which get debated on the talk pages and referenced in the articles. Wiki doesn't always get it right, but at least I can believe there is an intention to get it right.

Wikipedia is still biased since it’s written by groups of people with their own agendas. And as I said before, I referenced the failed razzias which are omitted. But somehow your authorless reference still stands? Guess so.

How is that? You still haven't proved that the caravans were attacked without the merchants identities being known.

You haven’t proved that they were. The issue I’m having with this line of thought of yours is that since there’s no mention of when the merchants were identified, that this somehow implies that these merchants were identified prior to the razzia and not after the deed was done. Again, no corroborating evidence and no statements, ie following the Nakhla raid, that the intention was to go after the ‘perpetrators’, whomever or wherever they may be. The surrah following the Nakhla raid justifying violence during Rejab confirms that this razzia was not for pursuing justice, but that Mohammed and his followers were blocked from entry into the Kaaba (which is worse than death apparently). Additionally, Mohammed and his raiding party members are more concerned about official decrees regarding the splitting of booty rather than that justice has been served against these presumed ‘perpetrators’.

See, as motive for targeting the Quraysh* they refer to "pestering". They don't give anything else. I suspect for the same reason as you. As I said: to minimise the persecution, and most definitely not to consider it as any grounds for retaliation. To pretend that Mohammed was upset by ridicule -- not by the killing of Muslims.

So you are accusing the Quraysh as being complacent of the murder of a number of Muslims (re: slaves). I can keep stating this over and over again until you cease pedaling this notion that the killing of Muslims are attributed to the Quraysh and thus are legitimate targets of raids.
If Mohammed was so concerned about these murders he would hold those who committed the acts as responsible and would judge them. Not the caravans. Not those who are leading these trade caravans.
Mohammed could have been upset for waking up on the wrong side of the bed or smelling like a goat when he arrived in Mecca the first time (which one of the hadiths do state, the latter at least). With your line of reasoning, this would have been good reasons also to attack any caravan along the Quraysh trading routes. Or not? You are packaging this all up nicely to make it seem so since you’ve made no distinction no matter how many times I bring it up.

By claiming things you cannot prove.

Like what? His intentions? The excess in raids? Replacing a monopoly on the Kaaba with his? Murdering slews of civilians? Making a fortune on raids? Murdering people who wrote/said satire mocking Mohammed/Islam (ie Dead poets society)? You see piety and justice in bloodshed and plunder, I get that.

This is still random. You are saying that any caravan along a very definite and non-random route (as if the Quraysh were limited in the routes they could take). This gives a set of caravans any of which could be selected with no further criterea -- according to you. That is random.

Really stretching here. You do understand the concept of a trading route, do you not? Mohammed’s criterion was to loot and plunder rich caravans, predominantly going along set routes from Syria. No further distinction was made.

The Quraysh were a big tribe in Mecca -- your above quote makes it sound like they had a monopoly on trade routes.

Quraysh had a monopoly on trade, this would included trade routes of which Mohammed knew the locations of. This isn’t even contested on pro-Islamic sites. Perhaps you’re trying another game of semantics here?

You're confused. The question is: why was he asked to mediate in Medina? Outside of Islam, he was a nobody. So, if his preaching wasn't succesful, what qualified him to mediate?

Preaching and politicking are two different things. Your original assertion is that he was a successful preacher in Mecca, you haven’t been able to support this.


This is page 10 (http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA22&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&output=html). There is no section III on that page. And the excerpts are regarding Mohammed being a prophet. That is the discussion of the page, including the semitic origins of the word "Nabi".

Sorry if you’re easily thrown off.


So we have nothing but preaching from Mohammed before the persecution. Islam, if successful, would:
-- threaten pilgramage to Mecca
-- introduce social welfare by granting the poor rights (see quote below)
-- make people consider those from other tribes to be like their own brothers
-- If everyone adopted the new religion, they would prefer Mohammad as their ruler

Some of these get described as dangerous -- but it's clear that the danger is to the status of those who already rule.

Isn’t it usually the reasons for war? A threat to power? Mind you, the Quraysh didn’t take an offensive approach outside of boycott and sanctions until following the 6th failed razzia. You forget the exclusiveness meaning those who didn’t practice his religious doctrine were excluded. Mohammed preached what he practiced as can be seen post 630.
Mind you, this has been proposed by a number of despots and dictators in our recent history. The story usually doesn’t end up that way once power has been achieved and paranoia sets in, as can be seen by example as the hadiths/surrahs progressed. So I’ve accomplished what I’ve set out to do, which was not to justify the actions of the Quraysh towards Mohammed’s threat towards Mecca’s stability, but rather to put it in perspective that the actions taken were that of a group of people was a natural reaction.

There is nothing there that justifies persecution.

Economic sanctions and boycott, I would see as a reaction by the Quraysh to this threat. If only Mohammed took such steps rather than skipping this step and resorting to bloodshed to those who opposed him.

btw, the reference to 70:24-25, I looked it up.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/yaq/yaq070.htm

Cherry-picking accomplishes what exactly? Nothing much.

You ask "what could have invoked such a stern reaction?" ie: what did the Muslims do to get treated so badly? And you ask because you do not have an answer. That is classic blaming the victim.

Another stretch. Stern reaction was in response to Mohammed’s actions, not those of his followers. Steering hard to port eh? Is this how you usually win arguments? Glad to see that you’ve managed to get another definition correct, how this applies to what I’ve said, yet again, is beyond me.

[FireGarden]

It was to establish grounds of doubt that the raiding party recognized one of the merchants as being the perpetrator(s) of thievery, as your link asserts, or rather claims without supporting evidence.

So, based (as you admit) on no evidence, you do not believe that the merchants failed to recognise the Muslims -- but you do believe that the Muslims didn't recognise the merchants.

Your bias is obvious.

Wikipedia is still biased since it’s written by groups of people with their own agendas. And as I said before, I referenced the failed razzias which are omitted. But somehow your authorless reference still stands? Guess so.

Wikipedia has a variety of people with a variety of agendas. That is why I can believe there is an intention to overcome bias.

So you are accusing the Quraysh as being complacent of the murder of a number of Muslims (re: slaves).

No, I am accusing you and your source of trying to minismise the persecution.

You do understand the concept of a trading route, do you not? Mohammed’s criterion was to loot and plunder rich caravans, predominantly going along set routes from Syria. No further distinction was made.

This is picking caravans at random -- from a specified set of caravans. Sounds stupid, but it is your claim. If you can't see that, then consider the request: "pick a number between 1 and 10". That is a request to pick a random number from a specified set.

Preaching and politicking are two different things. Your original assertion is that he was a successful preacher in Mecca, you haven’t been able to support this.

I think I have. Because, other than being a preacher, there is no reason for those in Medina to employ him. They probably wouldn't even have heard of him.

Sorry if you’re easily thrown off.

By wrong citations? Yeah, strange that.

Isn’t it usually the reasons for war? A threat to power? Mind you, the Quraysh didn’t take an offensive approach outside of boycott and sanctions until following the 6th failed razzia.

Except some of them did. Your own source says that very clearly. I quoted it, so there is no denying it.

You forget the exclusiveness meaning those who didn’t practice his religious doctrine were excluded. Mohammed preached what he practiced as can be seen post 630.

But this takes us back to the original question: "When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?"

I assume, since you didn't contradict, that you now agree that the quote highlighted in your earlier link was from 630.

Economic sanctions and boycott, I would see as a reaction by the Quraysh to this threat.

Your own source uses the word "persecution" -- so stop running from it. Here it is again: "At last the time came for the aristocracy of his tribe, the banu-U-mayyah, to engage in active persecution. This necessitated the migration (in 615) of 83 families of his followers to Christian Abyssinia...."

Cherry-picking accomplishes what exactly? Nothing much.

LOL.
You highlight a quote from 630 in a link, claim it is from quite a bit earlier, then gripe that I read the wrong bit. I quote a rather long passage from your source and you accuse me of cherry-picking when I quote more context to the verses mentioned by your source.

Another stretch. Stern reaction was in response to Mohammed’s actions, not those of his followers.

No they weren't. Unless we include speaking as an action. You have so far not linked to any violence by Muslims from before the persecution.

And I think it is strange that, at times, you can admit that Mohammed's followers were persecuted and then claim that this was just a reaction to Mohammed. You don't think that the act of conversion was in any way involved? Or was that Mohammed's act too, not the converts' act?

Steering hard to port eh? Is this how you usually win arguments?

Accusing of me of being a lefty? Is that how you usually convince yourself you've won an argument?

[bigjelmapro]

So, based (as you admit) on no evidence, you do not believe that the merchants failed to recognise the Muslims -- but you do believe that the Muslims didn't recognise the merchants.
Your bias is obvious.

As is yours. No movement. Just go on pretending that your position is somehow more solid.


Wikipedia has a variety of people with a variety of agendas. That is why I can believe there is an intention to overcome bias.

Yet to see anything on wikipedia critical of Mohammed, on anything. No intention to overcome bias, just cater groups of people who would put up a fuss if anything critical were to come out.


No, I am accusing you and your source of trying to minismise the persecution.

Keep playing this card. You're trying to group these two subjects together at an attempt at character assassination of this writer. Mind you, he's an x-Muslim to boot. I’m not going to go further on this either since there’s no new developments on this either.


This is picking caravans at random -- from a specified set of caravans. Sounds stupid, but it is your claim. If you can't see that, then consider the request: "pick a number between 1 and 10". That is a request to pick a random number from a specified set.

What sounds stupid is this attempt at a rebuttal. Caravans were picked according to the standard of razzias. Those that were thought to contain riches were plundered.


I think I have. Because, other than being a preacher, there is no reason for those in Medina to employ him. They probably wouldn't even have heard of him.

Cite this. Apparently I can't make arguments based on some logic without a slew of quotations, sources, etc. etc., but you can. =)


By wrong citations? Yeah, strange that.

Maximum of 2 pages that threw you off, difficult eh?

Except some of them did. Your own source says that very clearly. I quoted it, so there is no denying it.

Are you referring to the offensive approach here? If so, I’m referring to the attack against Mohammed’s raiding party following the 6th failed razzia.

But this takes us back to the original question: "When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?"

Keep going back. Page 10 has a sequence to it, which was stated when I provided the link. Exclusiveness is stated as prior to the economic sanctions/boycott imposed by the Quraysh. No timestamp will be provided =)

Your own source uses the word "persecution" -- so stop running from it. Here it is again: "At last the time came for the aristocracy of his tribe, the banu-U-mayyah, to engage in active persecution. This necessitated the migration (in 615) of 83 families of his followers to Christian Abyssinia...."

So we’re still stuck on this word eh? Was this migration a result of the Quraysh sanctions or the violence their followers incurred from their slave owners and such? The latter I have no issue in referring to as persecution. You’ll be hard-pressed to state that I didn’t refer to it as such. Moving on.

LOL.
You highlight a quote from 630 in a link, claim it is from quite a bit earlier, then gripe that I read the wrong bit. I quote a rather long passage from your source and you accuse me of cherry-picking when I quote more context to the verses mentioned by your source.

We’ve been through this already. The link shoots to the page that I wasn’t referring to. No griping, just your OCD with trivialities rearing its head again. I accuse you of cherry-picking since you’re picking out a surrah which had nothing to do with original point pertaining to exclusiveness in your attempts to present what Mohammed preached as innocuous.

No they weren't. Unless we include speaking as an action. You have so far not linked to any violence by Muslims from before the persecution.
And I think it is strange that, at times, you can admit that Mohammed's followers were persecuted and then claim that this was just a reaction to Mohammed. You don't think that the act of conversion was in any way involved? Or was that Mohammed's act too, not the converts' act?

Provide a counter-example where preaching has resulted in economic sanctions/boycott prior to this. Sorry, not giving in to this redundant attempt at steering the debate regarding Muslim violence.
Plenty of people converted to a number of religions in Mecca without issue. Why would Islam, which is nothing but a rehash of other already existing religions, be any different? It isn’t the religion itself, but rather what Mohammed preached. The results post 630 speak for themselves, don’t you think? Or do you somehow think this was all an epiphany between 615 and pre-630?

Accusing of me of being a lefty? Is that how you usually convince yourself you've won an argument?
Boink! Another one out of right field. But I get the play of definitions and trying to pin it to me. You know, I don’t see this going anywhere. I’ve made my distinctions evident and you keep making the same arguments pretending as if these distinctions haven’t been made. If you wish to continue stating the same thing for the nth+ 1 time, go ahead.

[FireGarden]

As is yours. No movement. Just go on pretending that your position is somehow more solid.

I do think it is more solid. You disagree with the link I provided - a biography of Mohammed. But you disagree based on no contradictory evidence. And you disagree in order to support a more extraordinary theory: that the Muslims attacked without considering the identity of the merchants. You seem to think they were willing to take the chance of attacking merchants who, until then, had been friendly. How would they know, if they didn't take the time to find out?

Yet to see anything on wikipedia critical of Mohammed, on anything. No intention to overcome bias, just cater groups of people who would put up a fuss if anything critical were to come out.

LOL.
They have an article "criticism of Mohammad":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

It references criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Daniel Pipes to the Pope.

Keep playing this card. You're trying to group these two subjects together at an attempt at character assassination of this writer. Mind you, he's an x-Muslim to boot. I’m not going to go further on this either since there’s no new developments on this either.

That's not a defence.

What sounds stupid is this attempt at a rebuttal. Caravans were picked according to the standard of razzias. Those that were thought to contain riches were plundered.

You don't seem to understand. You have said that, other than the route the caravans were taking and their richness, "no further distinction was made." You are left with a set of caravans, from which some are selected to be raided. According to you, "no further distinction was made". So, from that particular (non-random) set of caravans, caravans were selected at random.

You may not like it. But that is your claim. Because you refuse to accept that the Muslims would take the time to find out who the merchants are.

Cite this. Apparently I can't make arguments based on some logic without a slew of quotations, sources, etc. etc., but you can. =)


Cite what? That Mohammad was asked to arbitrate? Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Medina

A delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community.

Their source is the The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p. 39.

The question is, if Muhammad's preaching was unsuccessful (as you claim) then why did the leaders of a city approach him? Plenty of people were outsiders. Heck, they could have travelled further than Mecca to find outsiders. Or even found outsiders closer to Medina. I can't imagine that outsiders are hard to find. So why Muhammad? Did he win a lottery?

Maximum of 2 pages that threw you off, difficult eh?

You linked to page 22. I also checked page 10, but that was about Mohammed being a prophet, including the semitic origins of the word "Nabi". Didn't seem to be on topic. So I assumed your link was the reference you wanted me to read -- escpecially because of the highlighted text. Why is that text highlighted? I assume because it was what you were looking for when you googled. Am I wrong?

More to the point, having (apparently) found the other bits you wanted me to read, it turns out that there is nothing there to support your claims. I quoted the relevant passage and summarised it. What is there in it that supports you claims?

According to your source....
Islam, if successful, would:

-- threaten pilgramage to Mecca
-- introduce social welfare by granting the poor rights (see quote above)
-- make people consider those from other tribes to be like their own brothers
-- If everyone adopted the new religion, they would prefer Mohammad as their ruler


Or have I still missed something in your source?

Are you referring to the offensive approach here? If so, I’m referring to the attack against Mohammed’s raiding party following the 6th failed razzia.

Don't pretend to be confused. You know the topic is your attempt at explaining what the Muslims did to earn such a stern reaction from the leaders of Mecca.

Keep going back. Page 10 has a sequence to it, which was stated when I provided the link. Exclusiveness is stated as prior to the economic sanctions/boycott imposed by the Quraysh. No timestamp will be provided =)

No. Page 10 has a discussion of Muhammad being a prophet and origins of the word "Nabi". Here is page 10 (http://books.google.co.il/books?id=6FklfLSxpIkC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA22&ots=Gg-49SdKgY&dq=Date+of+origin+%22Truth+hath+come+and+falsehood +hath+vanished%E2%80%9D&output=html) again. Perhaps you should read it yourself.

I have already taken the trouble to quote from your source. Perhaps you can do the same -- or at least take the trouble to link to the correct page.

So we’re still stuck on this word eh? Was this migration a result of the Quraysh sanctions or the violence their followers incurred from their slave owners and such? The latter I have no issue in referring to as persecution. You’ll be hard-pressed to state that I didn’t refer to it as such. Moving on.

You want to seperate the two, even though your own source puts the persecution down to the leaders of Mecca. "At last the time came for the aristocracy of his tribe, the banu-U-mayyah, to engage in active persecution. This necessitated the migration (in 615) of 83 families of his followers to Christian Abyssinia...."

You are now arguing with your own source, not just with me. "Active persecution" lead to the migration in 615. That is what your own source says.

We’ve been through this already. The link shoots to the page that I wasn’t referring to. No griping, just your OCD with trivialities rearing its head again. I accuse you of cherry-picking since you’re picking out a surrah which had nothing to do with original point pertaining to exclusiveness in your attempts to present what Mohammed preached as innocuous.

No, the passage I quoted was from the section III you reffered to -- not your link.

The verses I quoted were cited by your source in the passage I quoted. I felt it was necessary to clarify what was open to misunderstanding. Perhaps you should try reading your source again, with special attention to the verses they cite. I've made it easy for you to find -- by quoting it in an earlier post.

Provide a counter-example where preaching has resulted in economic sanctions/boycott prior to this. Sorry, not giving in to this redundant attempt at steering the debate regarding Muslim violence.

Because there was no Muslim violence before the persecution.
And, as I have said, even if the Muslims were the first religion to be persecuted by the leaders of Mecca, then that is still persecution. And it is still unjustified.

Plenty of people converted to a number of religions in Mecca without issue. Why would Islam, which is nothing but a rehash of other already existing religions, be any different? It isn’t the religion itself, but rather what Mohammed preached.

What Mohammad preached was the religion. And he was more successful than other preachers. Successful enough that people from another city asked him to move there and arbitrate. Or can you find another reason for them selecting Mohammad?

The results post 630 speak for themselves, don’t you think? Or do you somehow think this was all an epiphany between 615 and pre-630?

So you are back to claiming that the Meccans could forsee the "inevitable" events of 630. And, yes, it is entirely possible that Mohammad's intention towards pagans changed between the years you mention. ie: the events of 630 weren't inevitable.

[bigjelmapro]

I do think it is more solid. You disagree with the link I provided - a biography of Mohammed. But you disagree based on no contradictory evidence. And you disagree in order to support a more extraordinary theory: that the Muslims attacked without considering the identity of the merchants. You seem to think they were willing to take the chance of attacking merchants who, until then, had been friendly. How would they know, if they didn't take the time to find out?

I've stated that the lack of evidence for the reasons behind and those who led the caravan can be seen from the hadiths and the resultant surrah regarding attacking this caravan during Rejab. None stated that this razzia was a form of justice and neither were those leading the caravan a reason for going through with this razzia during Rejab. The only reason that I've come across that has any merit was that this caravan was too rich to be let go. Nothing further is stated in the hadiths or surrah.

The evidence which you have pointed to repeatedly provides nothing other than retroactive reasoning for this razzia as a form of justice.

There's nothing more to discuss here.



LOL.
They have an article "criticism of Mohammad":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

It references criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Daniel Pipes to the Pope.

Guess I missed this source. Thanks for providing it. You have read it though right? References to criticisms are made (under each subject header), and then countered by a number of sources rebuking these criticisms in greater detail. I don't see this on the pro-Mohammed pages of Wikipedia.

The source I provided still stands as providing background information on the previous failed razzias.


You don't seem to understand. You have said that, other than the route the caravans were taking and their richness, "no further distinction was made." You are left with a set of caravans, from which some are selected to be raided. According to you, "no further distinction was made". So, from that particular (non-random) set of caravans, caravans were selected at random.

Mohammed sent out this raiding party on word that it was carrying rich goods. No other distinction was made other than the goods it was carrying.


You may not like it. But that is your claim. Because you refuse to accept that the Muslims would take the time to find out who the merchants are.

Their identity wasn't made clear before this raiding party was sent out. Only the goods carried.


Cite what? That Mohammad was asked to arbitrate? Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Medina

Their source is the The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p. 39.

The question is, if Muhammad's preaching was unsuccessful (as you claim) then why did the leaders of a city approach him? Plenty of people were outsiders. Heck, they could have travelled further than Mecca to find outsiders. Or even found outsiders closer to Medina. I can't imagine that outsiders are hard to find. So why Muhammad? Did he win a lottery?

On the contrary, you claimed that his preaching was successful hence he was asked to mediate between two squabbling tribes (mind you, this was between Arab tribes and the Jewish ones, the latter of which we both know what happened to). You stated that since his only ability was preaching and he was asked to mediate automatically makes him a successful preacher.

The reason he was asked to arbitrate was due to his abilities as a diplomat, not his ability as a preacher. An additional source which provides information not seen on Wikipedia:
Muhammad Drove out the Jews of Medina for Attacking & Killing Muslims? by M A Khan (http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/muhammad-drove-out-jews-medina-attacking-killing-muslims)

Let us start with a review of Prophet Muhammad’s encounter with the Jews of Medina. He relocated to Medina in June 622 CE on the background that his mission at Mecca had failed, had become stagnant, while his faith was making rapid progress in Medina even in his absence acquiring some 76 converts over the previous three years. It should be noted that his mission in Mecca, his hometown, made only 150 converts at least over the previous 13 years of his prophetic mission. The prophet was invited to Medina by his Medinan disciples (those 76 or so), who belonged to the two Pagan tribes, Aws and Khazraj; and he settled down without facing any opposition from any group, including the Jews, who were richer and more influential in Medina. It is anticipated that the Jews might’ve been welcoming of him, as he was converting them to a monotheism, which he presented to the Jews as a sister-religion to Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad continued his preaching unimpeded and the polytheists converted to Islam at a high frequency. But the problem with the Jews started only after Muhammad became too ambitious to present himself also as a prophet, a savior, of the Jews (& Christians) too. So Muhammad initially started pampering the Jews & Christians. He gave Moses a status even higher than his own [Bukhari 4:610,612]. Quranic verses pampered them saying, Allah gave them ‘guidance and light’ in the form of Torah [Q 5:44] and the Jews are “righteous” people [Q 6:153-54], who ‘excelled the nations’ [Q 45:16]. And he adopted many Jewish rituals and customs—fasting, circumcision, praying toward Jerusalem etc.—to make Islam truly look like an Abrahamic creed for the first time. Allah’s and Muhammad’s reason behind all these goody-goody sayings and gestures toward the Jews was to come out later; it was Muhammad’s ambition to become a prophet of Jews as well.
...
Muslims boast about this so-called treaty—known as the ‘Constitution of Medina’ and considered the ideal blueprint of the Islamic state—as an epitome of tolerance, human rights and justice to people of all faiths in Islamic state. I will go into detail of the terms of the treaty, which is readers can find in Ibn Ishasq (p. 231-232): it is nothing but a document, demanding unconditional subjugation of all Medinans to the political and religious commands of Muhammad, a recent refugee in Medina. I will, however, prove that the treaty was never signed by the Jews; they probably never saw it.
..

Read the rest. Gives a pretty clear indication that Mohammed's intentions in Medina were pretty much the same as those in Mecca, exclusive hegemony and subjugation.


More to the point, having (apparently) found the other bits you wanted me to read, it turns out that there is nothing there to support your claims. I quoted the relevant passage and summarised it. What is there in it that supports you claims?

Nah, you summarized and conveniently omitted the bits about Quraysh's reservations about what Mohammed was preaching. Hence the issues I have with your attempts to frame his intentions as innocuous.


Don't pretend to be confused. You know the topic is your attempt at explaining what the Muslims did to earn such a stern reaction from the leaders of Mecca.

Wrong again. My issue lies solely with Mohammed, not with his followers. You're steering here, yet again. I'm not going to give into this drivel.


Because there was no Muslim violence before the persecution.
And, as I have said, even if the Muslims were the first religion to be persecuted by the leaders of Mecca, then that is still persecution. And it is still unjustified.

Which is not my point. I've never stated that there was violence before the sanctions/boycotts. Never stated this. But somehow you find this to be a convenient tactic to negate the justification as seen from the Quraysh of what Mohammed was preaching and saw this as a destablizing factor.

Again: Provide a counter-example where preaching has resulted in economic sanctions/boycott prior to this.


What Mohammad preached was the religion. And he was more successful than other preachers. Successful enough that people from another city asked him to move there and arbitrate. Or can you find another reason for them selecting Mohammad?

As from the above source, what would you consider successful? 100? 200 converts? You're running with a false premise yet again thinking that a successful diplomat is the same as a successful preacher. They aren't.


So you are back to claiming that the Meccans could forsee the "inevitable" events of 630. And, yes, it is entirely possible that Mohammad's intention towards pagans changed between the years you mention. ie: the events of 630 weren't inevitable.
Mohammed followed through with what he preached. As he did in Medina, so he did in Mecca in 630. You see it as a change, I don't see that anything has changed with Mohammed's intentions other than his means to enforce what he preached, which he did in Medina post 622 and Mecca post 630.

[FireGarden]

I've stated that the lack of evidence for the reasons behind and those who led the caravan can be seen from the hadiths and the resultant surrah regarding attacking this caravan during Rejab. None stated that this razzia was a form of justice and neither were those leading the caravan a reason for going through with this razzia during Rejab. The only reason that I've come across that has any merit was that this caravan was too rich to be let go. Nothing further is stated in the hadiths or surrah.

First off, this doesn't address the point you quoted -- which was regarding whether the merchants were recognised before the attack.

Secondly, you have already quoted the verse which relates to the caravan in question and it does, indeed, refer to the persecution -- not the richness of the caravan.

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein [Quran 2:217].

The references are to the persecution, which was aimed at preventing people becoming Muslims and/or "turning back" those who had converted. Remember this quote?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca

Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abu Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion.

The reference you quoted from the quran is to general persecution, not to a particular person. But to read from it that the caravan was attacked merely because it was rich is rather biased. To conclude that the caravan was attacked without first checking to see who the merchants were is rather biased -- it implies that the Muslims would have attacked even if the merchants had previously been friendly to them.

Guess I missed this source. Thanks for providing it. You have read it though right? References to criticisms are made (under each subject header), and then countered by a number of sources rebuking these criticisms in greater detail. I don't see this on the pro-Mohammed pages of Wikipedia.

That is the point I made before. You said those who publish in wiki have an agenda. I pointed out that they have conflicting agendas. That is what leads to me accept that there probably is an intention to overcome bias.

Your source admits to lacking that intention.

Mohammed sent out this raiding party on word that it was carrying rich goods. No other distinction was made other than the goods it was carrying.

Their identity wasn't made clear before this raiding party was sent out. Only the goods carried.

Your claim remains that the Muslims were willing to attack anybody who was rich -- friend or foe. You need to support that with more than the lack of evidence you have already admitted to.

On the contrary, you claimed that his preaching was successful hence he was asked to mediate between two squabbling tribes (mind you, this was between Arab tribes and the Jewish ones, the latter of which we both know what happened to). You stated that since his only ability was preaching and he was asked to mediate automatically makes him a successful preacher.

The reason he was asked to arbitrate was due to his abilities as a diplomat, not his ability as a preacher.

I've found this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilf_al-Fudul

Which shows that Muhammad was at the begininng of arbitration in Mecca. It seems likely that Medina invited Muhammad on those grounds.

I hadn't known about that organisation.

An additional source which provides information not seen on Wikipedia:
Muhammad Drove out the Jews of Medina for Attacking & Killing Muslims? by M A Khan (http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/muhammad-drove-out-jews-medina-attacking-killing-muslims)

Read the rest. Gives a pretty clear indication that Mohammed's intentions in Medina were pretty much the same as those in Mecca, exclusive hegemony and subjugation.

So, you are back to claiming the Meccans were psychic? No? Then we still have no good reason for the persecution the Meccans meted out.

And which infomation does wiki not provide? That the Banu Qaynuqa were expelled by Mohammad? Seems to be on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qaynuqa

Nah, you summarized and conveniently omitted the bits about Quraysh's reservations about what Mohammed was preaching. Hence the issues I have with your attempts to frame his intentions as innocuous.

If I missed a bit out (even after having quoted bits verbatim -- see earlier post) then you can quote those bits I missed out. It's easy. And a heck of a lot more convincing than pretending your source says something it doesn't.

Wrong again. My issue lies solely with Mohammed, not with his followers. You're steering here, yet again. I'm not going to give into this drivel.

Which is not my point. I've never stated that there was violence before the sanctions/boycotts. Never stated this. But somehow you find this to be a convenient tactic to negate the justification as seen from the Quraysh of what Mohammed was preaching and saw this as a destablizing factor.

Again: Provide a counter-example where preaching has resulted in economic sanctions/boycott prior to this.

Again: even if this is the first injustice committed by the leaders of Mecca, it was an injustice. Mohammad had done nothing but preach. And you say you have no problem with Mohammad's followers, but the leaders of Mecca did because the bulk of the persecution was against Muhammad's followers -- Muhammad being mostly protected by his uncle.

[bigjelmapro]

First off, this doesn't address the point you quoted -- which was regarding whether the merchants were recognised before the attack.

You keep asking me for evidence that they weren’t identified prior to the attack. Do you see an issue with this request? The only information given to the raiding party was that there was going to be a caravan passing through a known Quraysh trading route. The raiding party, which wasn’t a raiding party at all to begin with but to observe, didn’t have any intended target. There was no recognition other than the 1 member of the raiding party being mistaken for a pilgrim by the caravan.

Secondly, you have already quoted the verse which relates to the caravan in question and it does, indeed, refer to the persecution -- not the richness of the caravan.
The references are to the persecution, which was aimed at preventing people becoming Muslims and/or "turning back" those who had converted. Remember this quote?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca

It refers to persecution. There’s no definitive article (as you’ve stated below), so it could be referring to simply being blocked access to the Ka’aba, the sanctions against Mohammed and his followers, and/or strangely enough, a form of retribution against the above stated cases of murder between slave and slave-owner. I don't see how the latter applies in attacking caravans headed for Mecca.


The reference you quoted from the quran is to general persecution, not to a particular person. But to read from it that the caravan was attacked merely because it was rich is rather biased. To conclude that the caravan was attacked without first checking to see who the merchants were is rather biased -- it implies that the Muslims would have attacked even if the merchants had previously been friendly to them.

The failed razzias display intent for gathering as much booty as possible, in addition to striking fear in not only the Quraysh, but pagans and non-Muslims alike, not as an attempt to seek justice or rectify any wrongs the Muslims experienced in Mecca. I don’t understand this concept you’re implying that stating that the razzias’ motivator of plunder is a biased position.
To my knowledge, Mohammed was the last of the Muslims to leave Mecca by ~620 and that Mohammed had declared all those remaining in Mecca as hostiles, especially the idolaters. So there were no merchants that had the status of friends or neutrals to the Muslims, especially not those headed to Mecca, which were seen as legitimate targets to the raiding parties.
From a pro-Muslim site, on the footnotes:
Expidition Of Abwa And ‘abdallah B. Jahsh ( http://www.whymuhammad.com/fr/contents.aspx?aid=2128)

Rajab was the first of the four months held to be sacred when it was not lawful to fight. The remaining three months where Dhul Q’adah, Dhil Hijjah and Muharram. Arabs observed this custom during the pre-Islamic and in the initial period of Islamic era, and this also finds a mention in the Qur’an (9:36). But the consensus of the doctors of law is that the interdiction in this regard has been repealed by later revelations which say, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5) and “Wage war on all the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you” (9:36). Said b. Al-Musayyab was asked if the Muslims were permitted to fight the disbelievers during the sacred months. He replied, “Yes. This was so during the wars waged by the earlier Muslims for there is not one instance in the history when the battles were suspended during the month of Rajab or for three months of Dhul Q’adah. Dhil Hijjah and Muharram or when Muslim force left the battlefield for their cantonments during the these months.’
Further displays intent. The rest of the article is an interesting read as well.

That is the point I made before. You said those who publish in wiki have an agenda. I pointed out that they have conflicting agendas. That is what leads to me accept that there probably is an intention to overcome bias.
Your source admits to lacking that intention.

I wasn’t comparing the bias between Wikipedia and this site I provided, as I’ve stated a number of times now. Wikipedia still has their bias as can be seen in the criticism of Mohammed page, as I’ve pointed out. Stating that there are conflicting agendas doesn’t negate the issue of having more counter-points on the criticism page drowning out the talking points of the criticism itself.
The source I provided stated the details behind the failed razzias (which doesn’t exist on the Wiki pages) therefore displaying intent of plundering as a prime motivator, not that of seeking justice.

I've found this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilf_al-Fudul

Which shows that Muhammad was at the begininng of arbitration in Mecca. It seems likely that Medina invited Muhammad on those grounds.

Right. Which wasn’t based on Mohammed’s religious preaching success but rather his diplomatic abilities, albeit, these abilities weren’t as passive as one would assume when one thinks of a diplomat. This is especially true in his dealings with the Jewish tribes in and around Medina.

So, you are back to claiming the Meccans were psychic? No? Then we still have no good reason for the persecution the Meccans meted out.

Trying this angle again eh? Answered this ad nauseum, but I guess you find this to be a bit comical to bring it up yet again.

If I missed a bit out (even after having quoted bits verbatim -- see earlier post) then you can quote those bits I missed out. It's easy. And a heck of a lot more convincing than pretending your source says something it doesn't.

Quote: “The objection was not to him as such but to this exclusiveness required in worshipping him. Acceptance of the new doctrine would eliminate all other deities and would thereby alienate the people from their fathers, who worshiped many deities. Besides, the new teachings would consign all those fathers to hell.” This bit was on page 12. The bit following this states the reservations of the Quraysh and what Mohammed was proposing, of which he imposed in Medina within a few years of his arrival and subsequently in Mecca in 630. There were no modifications to these intentions regarding the Ka’aba by Mohammed between the 615 to 630, albeit I would see his increased hostility towards non-Muslims following their rejection of Mohammed’s self-proclaimed prophetic status.
So there in black and white.
Also, this quoted part could attribute to the extreme reaction of the murdering of those two slaves whom converted to Islam by idoltarers.

Again: even if this is the first injustice committed by the leaders of Mecca, it was an injustice. Mohammad had done nothing but preach. And you say you have no problem with Mohammad's followers, but the leaders of Mecca did because the bulk of the persecution was against Muhammad's followers -- Muhammad being mostly protected by his uncle.
And again, provide an example, ie Jews and Christians, whom also rejected idolatry as well, where these people met with similar sanctions and persecution by the Quraysh.

[FireGarden]

You keep asking me for evidence that they weren’t identified prior to the attack. Do you see an issue with this request? The only information given to the raiding party was that there was going to be a caravan passing through a known Quraysh trading route. The raiding party, which wasn’t a raiding party at all to begin with but to observe, didn’t have any intended target. There was no recognition other than the 1 member of the raiding party being mistaken for a pilgrim by the caravan.

The biography of Mohammad that I linked to earlier gives the much more likely story that the merchants were recognised. You discount that and prefer to believe the opposite -- and your preference is based on nothing but your bias.

It refers to persecution. There’s no definitive article (as you’ve stated below), so it could be referring to simply being blocked access to the Ka’aba, the sanctions against Mohammed and his followers, and/or strangely enough, a form of retribution against the above stated cases of murder between slave and slave-owner. I don't see how the latter applies in attacking caravans headed for Mecca.

It applies because the two are linked in a way that you say they weren't: you said the Quran only refered to the richness of the caravan, whereas the Quran refers to persecution.

From a pro-Muslim site, on the footnotes:
Expidition Of Abwa And ‘abdallah B. Jahsh ( http://www.whymuhammad.com/fr/contents.aspx?aid=2128)

Further displays intent. The rest of the article is an interesting read as well.

But did you read it yourself? Because it says Hadrami was recognised by the Muslims. Just like my source said:
http://mercytomankind.org/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/AbdullahIbnJahshRaid.html

I wasn’t comparing the bias between Wikipedia and this site I provided, as I’ve stated a number of times now. Wikipedia still has their bias as can be seen in the criticism of Mohammed page, as I’ve pointed out. Stating that there are conflicting agendas doesn’t negate the issue of having more counter-points on the criticism page drowning out the talking points of the criticism itself.

Are you saying that you think wiki would be less biased if they left the criticism unanswered? :confused:

Quote: “The objection was not to him as such but to this exclusiveness required in worshipping him. Acceptance of the new doctrine would eliminate all other deities and would thereby alienate the people from their fathers, who worshiped many deities. Besides, the new teachings would consign all those fathers to hell.” This bit was on page 12.

But this is religious preaching. And you seem to have difficulty in accepting that the Muslims were persecuted for religious reasons. eg: You keep asking me to name another religion which was persecuted by the leaders of Mecca.

Also, this quoted part could attribute to the extreme reaction of the murdering of those two slaves whom converted to Islam by idoltarers.

Then you DO think that the matters you quoted above are related to the killing of slaves. So why this request?:

And again, provide an example, ie Jews and Christians, whom also rejected idolatry as well, where these people met with similar sanctions and persecution by the Quraysh.

Having argued that the Muslims were persecuted for their religious beliefs, you ask me to provide another example of religious persecution. Why? What would that do? What would it mean if Muslims were the only people to have been persecuted by the leaders of Mecca for their religious beliefs?

The bit following this states the reservations of the Quraysh and what Mohammed was proposing, of which he imposed in Medina within a few years of his arrival and subsequently in Mecca in 630.

I've summarised that bit twice now.

Islam, if successful, would:
-- threaten pilgramage to Mecca
-- introduce social welfare by granting the poor rights (see quote, post 325)
-- make people consider those from other tribes to be like their own brothers
-- If everyone adopted the new religion, they would prefer Mohammad as their ruler

That is what your source says on page 12. I see nothing there to justify persecution.

To clarify the first point...
It is more a worry along the lines of: "If God is everywhere, then what is the point of a holy site?" A matter Muhammad settled by making Mecca the focus of Islam, even maintaining many of the pagan rituals. Religious tourism was no longer threatened. Perhaps not surprisingly, it was after this that some prominent Meccans converted -- including Khalid ibn Walid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid), who was one of the Meccan leaders at the battle of Uhud.

[bigjelmapro]

Every one of the talking points I've repsonded to, but you keep repeating the same positions for each of them as if my position is beyond reasoning. I know of the persecution of the Muslims in Mecca, but I don't attribute the sanctions against Mohammed as anything but a reaction to a person who wanted to dominate the Arabian peninsula, as history has proven this to be the case.

If by now you don't understand my reservations regarding Mohammed's intentions and the history of his actions in both Medina and Mecca as a means to establish his dominance over the Arabian peninsula and circumvent power from the Quraysh, I really don't know how else to state this. Stating some utopian ideals/motivations still does not relinquish Mohammed of his actions against non-Muslims and has been used by a number of more recent dictators as a means to garner power (ie poverty stricken people).

This is all I'm going to say further about this....